Report: Muslim cleric invited to pray over fallen SEALs damns them during service

Originally posted by MaxSteiner

Obviously it's everyones right to get riled up and offended by whatever they like, but speaking as someone who's not offended this seems like a bit of a storm in a tea cup, I actually find some of the comments on here far more offensive as a human being than anything in the quoted passages.

Yet imagine the uproar from the Islamic community if the shoe was on the other foot!

Not equal are the inhabitants of the Fire and the inhabitants of Paradise. The inhabitants of Paradise -- they are the triumphant.

Context: Surah 59 is all about Christians, Jews and Hypocrites being defeated &/or punished in this world or the next.

Clear, in the above verse, that the inhabitants of fire are the non Muslims and the inhabitants of paradise are the Muslims.

What a crass thing to say at the funeral of non Muslims!

Either the Iman was deliberately being insulting or he was stupid.

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
reply to post by ollncasino

 

It's quite a common practice in Judaism, Christianity and Islam to take snippets without intending to reference the whole book, so I think you might be going out of your way to be offended, but honestly that bit could just as easily be interpreted as being about hypocrites of all religions than ones of any particular stripe couldn't it?

It is about hypocrites among the People of the Book. If one is NOT a hypocrite, it cannot offend, as that is who it is aimed at. In other words, for it to be offensive, it must be on target, and hit a nerve.

People who can squeeze offense out of it likely have far worse problems in their lives than some words in a sermon.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Not equal are the inhabitants of the Fire and the inhabitants of Paradise. The inhabitants of Paradise -- they are the triumphant.

Context: Surah 59 is all about Christians, Jews and Hypocrites being defeated &/or punished in this world or the next.

Clear, in the above verse, that the inhabitants of fire are the non Muslims and the inhabitants of paradise are the Muslims.

It really isn't, I'd say either the preacher was stupid or trying to offend - or you've either got a persecution complex or a really thin skin

Seriously all I get from that is that Heavens pretty wicked, and hell sucks, sounds like pretty standard funeral stuff to me.

Still like I say if you're desperate to be offended and really need to grind your axe against something, it is your right, I just think you could find something more worthy of your ire than this.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by nenothtu

Jihadists are not Muslims, according to the defined tenets of Islam.

Goodness me.

If Muslims who engage in Jihad are not Muslims, then that means that Muhammad was not a Muslim!

Has anyone told the moderate Muslims?

You're not paying attention. I did not say "Muslims who engage in jihad", I said Jihadists". I didn't mention Muslims in connection with bona fide jihad.

As a matter of fact, I was pretty clear that Jihadists are NOT Muslims.

Killing innocents is forbidden by the Qur'an.

Desecrating bodies is forbidden by the Qur'an.

Suicide is forbidden by the Qur'an.

Jihad is defensive in nature, according to the Qur'an.

"Jihadists" are not engaging in jihad of any sort according to the tenets of Islam.

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
you seem to be missing out the fact that you're only meant to be allowed to engage in such things in self defence (even if it is a bit proactive at times) and if the community as a whole agrees.

Let's just say then that Muhammad was so proactive in his 'self defense' that he conquered the Arabian Peninsula.



I'll take my hat off to that Muhammad. He certainly knew how to be proactive in self defensive.

"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".

Source: Koran 9:29

reply to post by ollncasino


That's the cool thing about Islam though - it united all of that fractured land in a very short period of time - whilst allowing Sabians, Christians and Jews to still practice their religion to a surprising extent for the time.

Really if you're upset about that take a look at "Manifest destiny" and what happened to the Native Americans - that was done by Christians and was a damn site more recent

Originally posted by ollncasino

Context: Surah 59 is all about Christians, Jews and Hypocrites being defeated &/or punished in this world or the next.

Clear, in the above verse, that the inhabitants of fire are the non Muslims and the inhabitants of paradise are the Muslims.

What a crass thing to say at the funeral of non Muslims!

Either the Iman was deliberately being insulting or he was stupid.

An objective reading of surah 59 shows that it is about hypocrites AMONG the Christians and Jews, not along with them, as 3 distinct groups. Those Christians and Jews who are not hypocrites appear to be safe, according to it. That is specified in verse 2, saying "those who disbelieved of the followers of the Book". It specifies a subgroup and singles it out.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Jihad is defensive in nature, according to the Qur'an.

The problem is, the Koran is inconsistent.

The verses that warn against aggressive wars are in the early Koran when Muhammad was weak.

The aggressive verses are in the later Koran when Muhammad was a powerful warlord. Guess which ones the Jihadists dwell on?

Originally posted by nenothtu

An objective reading of surah 59 shows that it is about hypocrites AMONG the Christians and Jews, not along with them, as 3 distinct groups. Those Christians and Jews who are not hypocrites appear to be safe, according to it. That is specified in verse 2, saying "those who disbelieved of the followers of the Book". It specifies a subgroup and singles it out.

Why is an Iman talking about Christian and Jewish hypocrites at a funeral?

Originally posted by MaxSteiner

That's the cool thing about Islam though - it united all of that fractured land in a very short period of time - whilst allowing Sabians, Christians and Jews to still practice their religion to a surprising extent for the time.

Strange. The Europeans conquered while the Muslims 'united'.

I suppose it depends where you are standing?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


After reading your earlier reply i did soem research afterward. It was too late to edit my post though. Yeah Sarah Gave Abraham her servant girl. And he took her as a wife,although not legally bound but a wife none the less. She was his Second wife NOT his main wife. Sarah was still queen of the castle but she wanted children so she had the bright idea of using Hagar.

Skorpion Its obvious youre well versed in this but alot of people who believe in Islam miss it. They constantly say See It was not Isaac but ishmail! It aggravates the hell out of me and alot of others who know better with careful reading. Thank you for the clarifications.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by nenothtu

Jihad is defensive in nature, according to the Qur'an.

The problem is, the Koran is inconsistent.

The verses that warn against aggressive wars are in the early Koran when Muhammad was weak.

The aggressive verses are in the later Koran when Muhammad was a powerful warlord. Guess which ones the Jihadists dwell on?

Indeed. Most divide those two periods as "the Meccan Period" and "the Medinan Period".

What was the cause of the flight from Mecca to Medina?

You don't have to answer that if you don't want to. I can understand how you wouldn't want to bring up matters involving a defense in this particular line of discussion.

"Aggressive" is a bit misleading. Even a defense can be prosecuted aggressively - if it isn't, it will likely fail. Perhaps you meant "verses involving offensive warfare" instead? After all, ALL wars are aggressive if they're done right, defensive OR offensive. That is the nature of war - aggressive action.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by nenothtu

An objective reading of surah 59 shows that it is about hypocrites AMONG the Christians and Jews, not along with them, as 3 distinct groups. Those Christians and Jews who are not hypocrites appear to be safe, according to it. That is specified in verse 2, saying "those who disbelieved of the followers of the Book". It specifies a subgroup and singles it out.

Why is an Iman talking about Christian and Jewish hypocrites at a funeral?

It appears he was doing so in order to differentiate between the "companions of the fire" and "the companions of Paradise", and included the memorialized dead amongst the latter. Since some of the dead were ostensibly Christians, he used verses involving the "People of the Book" to include them, it appears. He may have been better served reciting surah 98, but undoubtedly someone would have seized on verse 6 and entirely ignored verse 7 in order to be offended.

There is another surah that speaks of the Christians that helped and sheltered the Muslims during their flight from Mecca - and their rewards in paradise, But I can't find it at the moment, and at any rate it's less clear as to who it is speaking about, and so would probably not have been the best choice anyhow. In order to understand who it is speaking of, one must know something of Islamic history, which the cleric probably didn't expect in part of his audience.

Certified translation.
I have no words. I feel like my heart got ripped out of my chest. # EVERYBODY INVOLVED.

Obama : Sent Radical Muslim Cleric to condemn Seal Team 6 to hell during Funeral (May 10, 2013)

Originally posted by nenothtu
What was the cause of the flight from Mecca to Medina?

You don't have to answer that if you don't want to. I can understand how you wouldn't want to bring up matters involving a defense in this particular line of discussion

While Muslims made a huge issue out of the 'flight' from Mecca, the fact remains that not a single Muslim was harmed in any way.

Sadly the same can not be said for the Jewish tribes in Medina who initially welcomed Muhammad and his Muslims. His Jewish allies soon became his enemies, for various reasons and he variously threw them out of Medina, besieged them in their strongholds, killed some and took some prisoner, according to the Koran.

Poor Muhammad. Everywhere he went he found enemies.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
You haven't seen anything yet brother. Just wait till the Obama-nation of Desolation really gets ramped up. Well if Obama wants his god who is Satan to be worshipped at a funeral, that in itself speaks volumes.

edit on 10-5-2013 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)

And this is the kind of stupidity giving ATS a really bad name. I can't believe this kind of BS ranting post gets stars on here. This place is not a conspiracy forum, you are not a conspiracy theorist.

I think 90% of these posters need to f-off back to their Republican or Democrat HQ or just stick to their ranting and nonsensical political cheer leading on YouTube video responses.

reply to post by nenothtu


I think the radical Jihad thing is a perversion of doctrine. I had a guy tell me years ago that the inner meaning of Jihad in Quran means warring with one's own members, and there is a similar point in the Bible. Armageddon is spiritual warfare. It would be foolish not to admit that today some interpret this literally to mean going out and physically harming people in Jihad for a cause.

But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Romans 7:23

While we can denounce radical Jihad in the physical sense as not being the true teaching, it is nevertheless folly to not acknowledge that this is being used by people to stir up hatred and anger.
Don't you think clerics have a moral duty to teach this properly instead of using it in their desire to conquer other peoples and push forward a Caliphate?

One does not kill oneself to get rid of the warring of the members, then why does Jihad recommend killing infidels to rid the world of non-believers? This is a radical thing and a perversion of a genuine teaching.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by nenothtu
What was the cause of the flight from Mecca to Medina?

You don't have to answer that if you don't want to. I can understand how you wouldn't want to bring up matters involving a defense in this particular line of discussion

While Muslims made a huge issue out of the 'flight' from Mecca, the fact remains that not a single Muslim was harmed in any way.

Avoiding imminent harm is sort of the whole idea behind fleeing.

Sadly the same can not be said for the Jewish tribes in Medina who initially welcomed Muhammad and his Muslims. His Jewish allies soon became his enemies, for various reasons and he variously threw them out of Medina, besieged them in their strongholds, killed some and took some prisoner, according to the Koran.

Poor Muhammad. Everywhere he went he found enemies.

If you'd care to tell the rest of the story, rather than just hand-spun parts of it, I'll listen, but since it's veering away from the topic of the thread, I'm not going to dig into it myself.

reply to post by g146541

Stirring up the muslim hate, we must be entering another theater of war soon.

That would be Syria, but POTUS is doing it under the pretense of being their savior. He's very good at that, as he convinced half of America already.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I think the radical Jihad thing is a perversion of doctrine.

It is. Worse than that, it's a departure from doctrine as used these days. By their fruits you will know them. A "duck" that acts like something other than a duck is probably not really a duck.

It would be foolish not to admit that today some interpret this literally to mean going out and physically harming people in Jihad for a cause.

I think "misinterpretation" might be a better choice of words, but essentially I agree. Likewise, a misinterpretation of what the cleric said in this incident has been used to unfairly characterize the situation.

While we can denounce radical Jihad in the physical sense as not being the true teaching, it is nevertheless folly to not acknowledge that this is being used by people to stir up hatred and anger.

Absolutely, and not all of those using it to stir up anger and hatred even claim to be Muslims. A fair number of "Christians" and Seculars are doing precisely the same thing to create divisions, in the same way, from "the other side", but really appear to me to be playing for the same team. If they are using the same verses to create the same divisions, it's not apparent what justification they can use to claim to be on the other side.

Don't you think clerics have a moral duty to teach this properly instead of using it in their desire to conquer other peoples and push forward a Caliphate?

Yes.