HeiGou
04-08-2006, 05:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
moujahid
Either you belong to the army of Islam or you belong to the army of the kuffar.
And no one belongs anywhere in between? Like I said, if a Brother enjoys something he will usually find a way to do it.
I was referring to the people whose real intention is to hurt Muslims in any way possible. Not to ignore the fact that usually the most harm caused is due to the "Muslims" themselves - "Muslims" who don't follow Shari'a.
As these people do not exist except in a fringes of the internet, this does not bring me much comfort.
Thats what they did. Except that they blew up innocent civilians instead of chopping their heads off. The people who suffered are innocent civilians.
Chopping someone's head off is a deliberate, pre-meditated act of murder. The US does not do that. Some innocent people have died by accident in the course of normal and acceptable military operations. Again if you cannot see that, if your moral values are so beyomd mine, I take no comfort from your promises of protecting the innocent.
Incase you have been misinformed...Jihad means struggle to defend or Self-defence. Offensive Jihad or attacking kuffar first is not sanctioned in the Shari'a. Kafir means someone who rejects the truth - not necessarily someone in the army of the kuffar attacking Muslims.
What makes you think that jihad is only in self-defence? What is more important, how do you define that? Can we agree there has never ever been a single case where a Muslim country had attacked non-Muslims that Muslim scholars and the general Muslim population have not supported? That is, either no Muslim has ever waged an aggressive war or they all were able to find some pretext for the aggression.
"Civilized" may be according to your standards. I dont find the treatment of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib as being civilized.
And on what basis are you judging them? By the standards of the Arab countries perhaps? By the standards of any Muslim country in existence today? The Americans sent people to jail for that. It was a crime. When was the last time a Muslim government sent one of their own to jail for abuses of Muslim inmates?
And of course the inmates of AG are not prisoners of war.
You are definitely confusing with people who have surrendered in war with the people who are still fighting. These two are different. POW's are different from the ones who are still in the battle field. I said their heads need to be chopped off..not the POW's.
Like Nick Berg? Was he still fighting? How do you cut someone's head off on the battlefield these days? Explain a logical and coherent series of events to me that would lead you to be in a position to cut off, say, a airforce pilot's head?
you sound like Muslim's have been in offensive struggle against the west since the beginning of time. What a lie.
Really? What makes you think it is a lie? Can we agree that Muslim borders only expanded at the expense of the Christians until, Oh I don't know, some time in the 12th century in Spain, some time in the 18th century in Eastern Europe? So that's 600 years of expanding at the expense of Western Europe and 1200 years of expanding at the expense of Eastern Europe. And you claim this is all entirely defensive?
Muslims were the only benign force on this planet until the last century.
Find me any non-Muslim population who shares a border with a Muslim population and I'll find you a population that hates Muslims and does not think they are a benign force. The only people who think that are those that live far far away from Muslims and do not deal with them (England until about 40 years ago for instance). India? China? Greece? Southern Nigeria? Russia?
What you see now on TV is resentment from the "Muslims" if it is really them. Im sorry but chopping off heads of innocent people is not sanctioned in Islamic Sharia'.
Again that interesting word "innocent". Can we agree that chopping off the heads of guilty people is part of Sharia and it is not up to the guilty people to determine if they are guilty or not, and in fact they do not share any common moral values that would mean that Muslims and non-Muslims could ever agree on who was guilty or not?
Replyal-fateh
04-08-2006, 05:14 PM
Kill the Infidels, Surah 9:5
This article is about the oft-quoted, or rather misquoted, Surah 9:5 verse of the Quran, which is claimed to call upon "all" Muslims to kill "all" non-Muslims or the so-called "Infidels".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslims are often questioned, "Did not Muhammad call on all Muslims to kill the infidels?" The answer is absolutely not!
Then, we are asked another question: "Why then does the Quran say, "fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?" (9:5).
There are two interrelated answers to that question. The first is historical. The second is related to the nature of the Quran itself.
HISTORY:
When the Islamic state was rapidly expanding in the seventh and eighth century, many people came under the direct governance of Muslims. These peoples belonged to different religions, races, ethnicities, etc. If the hypothesis that "Muslims are required to eradicate non-Muslims or "infidels" was correct, then a pattern of deliberate extermination, forced conversions, and/or expulsion would have been observed throughout the history of Islam, especially when Muslims were powerful and winning over their opponents.
That systematic pattern is simply absent. For example, let us take India. India (or considerable parts of it) was for several centuries under the Muslim Mughal Empire. Many of the subjects of the empire, up to and including very high-ranking state officials, were Hindu. (This does not mean that Hindus lived under no discrimination whatsoever. But this is another issue.) Till now, India is a predominantly Hindu country. The facts on the ground belie the hypothesis that Muslims have believed that non-Muslims should be killed, evicted, or forced to convert.
Another example: in contemporary Egypt, which was included in the Islamic state only ten years after the demise of the Prophet, about 6-10% of the people are Christians. Contrast this with Spain. For about eight centuries, Spain was a place of peaceful co-existence for Muslims, Christians, and Jews. (Again, I am not, at all, claiming that everyone enjoyed the same rights under the Arab/Muslim ruling.) However, in 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella signed the Edict of Expulsion designed to rid Spain of its Jews. The Jews were given a stark choice: baptism or deportation. An estimated 50,000 fled to the Ottoman empire where they were warmly welcomed. And about 70,000 converted to Christianity and remained in the country only to be plagued by the Inquisition which accused them of insincerity. In 1499, the Spanish state gave its Muslims the same choice: convert or leave. The result of these policies was simple: Spain almost entirely got rid of millions of people who were not Christians. (Spain now of course has minority groups, including Muslims coming mainly from North Africa as immigrants.)
The list goes on. Investigating history clearly shows that most (saying "all" cannot sustain historical scrutiny) Muslims have never believed that they are under obligation to exterminate non-Muslims, or as non-Muslims refer to such people as "Infidels". Of course, it would not be scholastic to say non-Muslims, at many times, enjoyed "full citizenship" (though this term is an anachronism in the context discussed here) but compared to other locations, minorities were significantly better off under Muslim ruling, when Muslims were in fact capable of inflicting severe harm on non-Muslims, especially if we were to acknowledge the absurd notion of Muslims ambition to "kill the infidels..."
I thought it was best to stop here for a few minutes to scrutinize this term "Infidel". We have heard, over and over again, the majority of commentators and "experts" on Islam using this term and attributing it to Islam's and Muslims sentimentality of non-Muslims.
I, as a Muslim, have never called a non-Muslim an "Infidel", so this word was actually foreign to my vocabulary, until I have heard it mentioned several time by Christian and Zionist so-called "experts" on Islam. As a matter of fact, I took the liberty of going through several widely used translations of the Quran to find this oft-spoken "infidel" term. The translations of the Quran of which I researched included: M. Khan, Yusuf Ali, Shakir, and Pickthal, only to find out that in all of these translations, I did not find this word "infidel" in any of them! The Arabic word "Kaafir, Kafir, Kufar" was translated as Disbelievers or Unbelievers.
What's more interesting, after digging deeper, we discovered this term was being used centuries before the advent of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The term infidel comes from the Latin word infidelis, which means "unbelieving" or "unfaithful." During the Middle Ages ( A.D.c. 450–c. 1500), the Catholic Church (Christians) used the term to describe Muslims (followers of Islam, the religion founded by the prophet Muhammad; c. A.D.570–632).
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary states the following on the term "infidel":
Main Entry: in·fi·del
Pronunciation: 'in-f&-d & l, -f&-"del
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English infidele, from Middle French, from Late Latin infidelis unbelieving, from Latin, unfaithful, from in- + fidelis faithful -- more at FIDELITY
1: one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity
2 a: an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion b : one who acknowledges no religious belief
3: a disbeliever in something specified or understood
- infidel adjective
Two remaining points:
(1) There is the claim that Muslims only refrained from killing the infidels because of the economic benefits of "enslaving" them. Most of those who claim this also claim that Muslims are inherently violent because of the "clear" Quranic injunctions against the "Infidels". This position is, at least, contradictory. Because on the one hand, Muslims' violence is rooted in the Quran, and, on the other hand, generations upon generations of Muslims simply discarded the Quran for their economic well-being. If Muslims persistently and universally prefer economic prosperity to the Quran and the commandments of the Prophet, then both the Quran and the Prophet are irrelevant to them. So why the attempt to ground Muslim behavior in the Quran and the Prophetic tradition if these are in fact not important at all to Muslims? If Muslims stick to the Quran, so why did not they exterminate the other, a policy allegedly supported unequivocally by the Quran? There is no way out of this fallacious reasoning except by saying that Muslims evoke whatever serves their interest. This statement of the entire Muslim nation being innately incoherent and immoral is espoused by many Islamophobes. This statement tells us much more about the Islamophobes themselves than about Muslims, however.
(2) In the modern era, some Muslim people participated in the genocide of non-Muslims, such as the Armenians by the Turks and the East Timorese by the Indonesians. However, these killings were undertaken by secular regimes for nationalistic reasons. I do not think anyone can claim, for instance, that Ataturk, the father of the secularized Turkey and the abolisher of the Islamic caliphate, oppressed the Armenians (and the Greeks), to rid Turkey of them, in the name of Islam.
(A relevant link to this discussion concerning the genocide in Rwanda and the attitude of Muslims.)
THE QURAN:
(1) The Quran is not classified subject-wise. Verses on various topics appear in dispersed places in the Quran and no order can be ascertained from the sequence of its text. The first verses revealed in the Quran was in chapter (surah) 96.
(2) The structure of the Quran makes it necessary to approach it using the dialectic "both and" methodology of reasoning. This means that to investigate a certain issue, the verses pertaining to the issue should be gathered together. The verses are then analyzed comprehensively while paying attention to the historical context (in Islamic terminology called the "occasion of revelation") of each verse. The truth is considered to be found in all the relevant verses, because if the Quran is divine as the vast majority of Muslims believe, it should be free from real contradictions and inconsistencies. Apparent contradictions are not only reconciled and transcended but are thoroughly investigated because they actually reflect deep meanings and paradigms. (This is akin, for example, to the process of understanding the Chinese idiom, "a man is stronger than iron and weaker than a fly." Although the wise saying is superficially self-contradictory, it reveals a deep fact about humans who, in some situations, are very strong. Yet, in other contexts, these same people are very weak.) If the reductionist approach to the Quran is valid, then all ideas, from violence to absolute pacifism, can be justified and rationalized using the Quran. For the Quran does not only contain verses about war, it is also replete with verses about forgiveness and countering evil with good.
(3) The same Quran that reads, "Whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you" (2:194), also reads, "Goodness and evil are not the same. So repel evil with goodness, then the one who had enmity between you becomes a trusted and dear friend" (41:34). When it comes to dealing with a transgressor, the Quran is basically delineating four different strategies, the validity of which is contingent on the situational and contextual factors. The first is retaliation which is permissible on the condition that it does not exceed the limits. Verse (2:194) is clear on this, "whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you." Verse (16:126) gives the same meaning, "and if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted." Verse (3:134) gives the other three strategies, "and those who restrain their anger and pardon men; and God loves the doers of good to others." The three methods given here are, (a) to restrain one's anger and not respond, (b) to pardon the wrongdoer, and (c) to do good to the transgressor. According to verse, method (c) is the most beloved by God. Here the Quran teaches the superiority, in the sight of God, of responding to evil with goodness. Now what should the Muslim do when wronged? It depends on the context, on the situational factors. Under some circumstances, the wrongdoer must be punished. Under others, one should refrain from retaliation, or go a step further to wholehearted forgiveness, or even repel the transgressor's evil with goodness. The above is important for explaining how to deal with the Quranic text.
(4) The Quranic principle for dealing with the 'other' non-Muslim is clear from verses (60:8-9), "God does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of your religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely God loves the doers of justice. God only forbids you respecting and loving those who made war upon you on account of your religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up others in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust." The Quran does not present Islam as a religion of unquestionable pacifism or relentless aggression. Those who do not transgress should be treated humanely and benevolently with complete respect. Those who transgress should be fought, "And fight in the cause of God those who fight against you, and do not commit aggression. Indeed God does not love those who are aggressors," (2:190). In other words, Islam is a religion of peace, not in the sense that it is pacifist, but in the sense that Muslims can and should co-exist peacefully with others who respect them. Neither transgression is permitted nor forcing others to espouse Islam as the Quran says, "there is no compulsion in religion," (2:256).
(5) Based on the above, we can now investigate verse (9:5), "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." One of the main concerns of Chapter (Surah) 9 of the Quran (a Surah is a collection of verses) was to delineate the strategies for dealing with the polytheists of the Arabian Peninsula after the Muslims, under the leadership of Prophet Muhammad, peacefully captured Mecca (In January, 630, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his followeres were joined by tribe after tribe along their way to Mecca. They entered Mecca without bloodshed and the Meccans, seeing the tide had turned, joined them.) the city that since the beginning of Islam lead the oppression and persecution of the Muslim converts.
(6) Since the polytheists differed in their relationship with the new religion after its victory, there was a need to differentiate between the malevolent enemies of Islam bent on destroying the Muslims and who did not observe their treaties with the Muslims, those who hated Islam but were willing to honor their treaties with Muslims, those who rejected Islam but peacefully co-existed with the Muslim community, etc. The aforementioned verse (9:5) was concerned with the most vehement opponents of the Islamic faith not by virtue of their refusal to be Muslims but by continually breaching their treaties with the Muslims and fighting them. Given that, their treatment is not equal, the complete verse says, "So when the sacred months have passed away, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and keep them under observation, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely God is Forgiving, Merciful." Meaning: so when the grace period (4 months) is past, and if the other party insists on fighting Islam, then a state of war is inevitable. The struggle may take the form of killing, or capture and imprisonment, or just keeping an eye on these enemies to fend off their evil if they decide to launch an offensive against Muslims. The punishment should be fair and just and, thus, must be proportional to the crimes actually committed. Not only this, but the pagans can repent and accept Islam, as evident from the last part of (9:5), or desist from attacking Muslims and ask for protection, as evident from the next verse (9:6), "If one amongst the pagans ask you for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure."
Understanding the verses' historical context is crucial, not to confine them to their context, but for a proper comprehension of their implications. Moreover, as shown previously, the verse must be interpreted along with all the other verses explicating how a Muslim should deal with others, Muslim or non-Muslim, including verse (8:61), "And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in God; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing."
The worst thing to do with the Quran is to approach it seeking confirmation for what one already believes in and turning a blind eye to any evidence that is inconsistent with his/her pre-conceived attitudes and biases. Anyone can find in the Quran whatever he/she wants to prove. Anyone can do the same thing with the Bible. The challenge, however, is to make a judgment only after a thorough and exhaustive investigation of all available Quranic evidence.
A Muslim may become selective and simply ignore some indispensable principles while working out what she or he should do in a given situation. Apart from self-indulgence, the socio-political context plays an important role in inducing this selectivity. A Muslim living where she or he finds Islam constantly reviled, the Prophet perpetually vituperated, and the Quran persistently misquoted may respond apologetically by declaring Islam as an "obviously" pacifist religion, ignoring anything in the Quran and the Prophetic traditions testifying to the contrary. A Muslim witnessing his wife being raped and his children slaughtered will very likely discard the well-established Islamic rules of engagement. The prevalent conditions are not a valid justification, but Muslims are humans after all, and humans — all humans — succumb to their overwhelming context. (Interestingly, the context was correctly and convincingly evoked in the U.S. media to understand the Abu Gharib prison abuses. When it comes to why some Muslims go to extremes, there is no context, only a culture of evil and fanaticism.)
Other interesting articles: Analysis of Chapter 9: 1-28
Replymoujahid
04-08-2006, 05:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
HeiGou
And no one belongs anywhere in between? Like I said, if a Brother enjoys something he will usually find a way to do it.
I understand that there are shades of gray, but Basic understandings are for sure different.
format_quote Originally Posted by
HeiGou
As these people do not exist except in a fringes of the internet, this does not bring me much comfort.
Obviously you would never agree on something like that. The imperialists, the freemsaons, the communists, the "enlightened" secular humanists, the jews and so on ..all these people share the same view point toward the Believers. They are all united against the Muslims.
[QUOTE=HeiGou;248553]
Chopping someone's head off is a deliberate, pre-meditated act of murder. The US does not do that. Some innocent people have died by accident in the course of normal and acceptable military operations.
QUOTE]
and dropping bombs on innocent people is not pre-meditated? it happens so that they like to bomb a small group of people..so they destroy a whole city for that. and how many Mujahideen did they manage to kill? They are still out there and even more now.
format_quote Originally Posted by
HeiGou
Again if you cannot see that, if your moral values are so beyomd mine, I take no comfort from your promises of protecting the innocent.
im not very surprised to hear from you that from you
format_quote Originally Posted by
HeiGou
What makes you think that jihad is only in self-defence? What is more important, how do you define that? Can we agree there has never ever been a single case where a Muslim country had attacked non-Muslims that Muslim scholars and the general Muslim population have not supported? That is, either no Muslim has ever waged an aggressive war or they all were able to find some pretext for the aggression.
Jihad has its own rules and regulations. There is nothing such as "holy war" in Islam. Peace is more important to us than anything else. To establish peace, evil forces needs to be wiped out. Give me one example of Muslims attacking Non-Muslim nations where they had support from the Scholars or from the people. NOT EVEN A SINGLE. there is no need for Muslims to attack other people. It is not allowed in Sharia. Im sorry if people do it, thats definitely their problem. Muslims have ALWAYS been on the defence. ALWAYS.
format_quote Originally Posted by
HeiGou
And on what basis are you judging them? By the standards of the Arab countries perhaps? By the standards of any Muslim country in existence today? The Americans sent people to jail for that. It was a crime. When was the last time a Muslim government sent one of their own to jail for abuses of Muslim inmates?
And of course the inmates of AG are not prisoners of war.
On the basis of basic human morals. None of the Arab countries follow full Islamic Sharia. Name me one Muslim country that follows Sharia. If there was one, they would definitely punish people who abuse power. There is not much difference between the prisoners of war and the inmates of AG prison.
format_quote Originally Posted by
HeiGou
Like Nick Berg? Was he still fighting? How do you cut someone's head off on the battlefield these days? Explain a logical and coherent series of events to me that would lead you to be in a position to cut off, say, a airforce pilot's head?
Give me one reliable authentic Islamic Sharia board that would approve of something like that...none. The stories that you here from CNN or Fox cannot be trusted. they are criminals also who instigate this hatred.
kill an Airforce pilot? why not? he is a war criminal killing innocent people.
format_quote Originally Posted by
HeiGou
Really? What makes you think it is a lie? Can we agree that Muslim borders only expanded at the expense of the Christians until, Oh I don't know, some time in the 12th century in Spain, some time in the 18th century in Eastern Europe? So that's 600 years of expanding at the expense of Western Europe and 1200 years of expanding at the expense of Eastern Europe. And you claim this is all entirely defensive?
People accepted Islam by choice not by force. Incase if you didnt know. Does expanding always has to be by force? what makes you think like that. People all over the world today are accepting Islam by force? Islam spread by sword? huh?
format_quote Originally Posted by
HeiGou
Find me any non-Muslim population who shares a border with a Muslim population and I'll find you a population that hates Muslims and does not think they are a benign force. The only people who think that are those that live far far away from Muslims and do not deal with them (England until about 40 years ago for instance). India? China? Greece? Southern Nigeria? Russia?
Most of the Muslims in India, China, Africa, Russia accepted Islam , not because they were forced to. When Islam came to them, the kuffar attacked FIRST and then obviously the Believers had to attack to shut them up. Prove that im not right.
format_quote Originally Posted by
HeiGou
Again that interesting word "innocent". Can we agree that chopping off the heads of guilty people is part of Sharia and it is not up to the guilty people to determine if they are guilty or not, and in fact they do not share any common moral values that would mean that Muslims and non-Muslims could ever agree on who was guilty or not?
So according to your morals people attacking the Muslim civilians fall under the category of "innocent" ?
ReplyHeiGou
04-08-2006, 06:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
moujahid
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
As these people do not exist except in a fringes of the internet, this does not bring me much comfort.
Obviously you would never agree on something like that. The imperialists, the freemsaons, the communists, the "enlightened" secular humanists, the jews and so on ..all these people share the same view point toward the Believers. They are all united against the Muslims.
Indeed and perhaps you see my problem. I do not think there is a vast secret international conspiracy of Imperialists, Freemasons, Communists, Secular humanists, and the Jews out to get Islam. And of course I know there is precisely no evidence of it. So from my perspective, you, based on a lie and a myth, would murder millions of people because you, without any evidence at all, think they are waging war on Islam.
As I said, this does not bring me much comfort.
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Chopping someone's head off is a deliberate, pre-meditated act of murder. The US does not do that. Some innocent people have died by accident in the course of normal and acceptable military operations.
and dropping bombs on innocent people is not pre-meditated? it happens so that they like to bomb a small group of people..so they destroy a whole city for that. and how many Mujahideen did they manage to kill? They are still out there and even more now.
It is not what they do, it is what the intended to do. So if they saw a group of people and their intelligence told them it was a group of terrorists, and they blew them up only to discover later that the people they killed were innocent civilians, no crime has been committed. And such a response would have to be proportional to the end they wish to achieve and so obviously destroying an entire city does not come under that rule. So they do not do that and if they did it would be a crime.
I doubt there are even more now or Osama Bin Laden wouldn't be begging for a truce.
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
What makes you think that jihad is only in self-defence? What is more important, how do you define that? Can we agree there has never ever been a single case where a Muslim country had attacked non-Muslims that Muslim scholars and the general Muslim population have not supported? That is, either no Muslim has ever waged an aggressive war or they all were able to find some pretext for the aggression.
Jihad has its own rules and regulations. There is nothing such as "holy war" in Islam. Peace is more important to us than anything else. To establish peace, evil forces needs to be wiped out.
Well clearly there is holy war in Islam - it is a subset of Jihad. To establish peace you need to establish justice, not just kill people until they shut up.
Give me one example of Muslims attacking Non-Muslim nations where they had support from the Scholars or from the people. NOT EVEN A SINGLE. there is no need for Muslims to attack other people. It is not allowed in Sharia. Im sorry if people do it, thats definitely their problem. Muslims have ALWAYS been on the defence. ALWAYS.
And so when Tariq crossed the Straits of Gibralter to attack Spain, the cause was what exactly? When did Spain attack the Muslims? When Muhammed sent his army to Tabuk to fight the Romans, what provocation had been given? Ansar Al-Adl makes a claim about the Ghassanids but they ceased to be Rome's ally before Muhammed was Called. So what did the Romans do?
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
And on what basis are you judging them? By the standards of the Arab countries perhaps? By the standards of any Muslim country in existence today? The Americans sent people to jail for that. It was a crime. When was the last time a Muslim government sent one of their own to jail for abuses of Muslim inmates?
And of course the inmates of AG are not prisoners of war.
On the basis of basic human morals. None of the Arab countries follow full Islamic Sharia. Name me one Muslim country that follows Sharia. If there was one, they would definitely punish people who abuse power. There is not much difference between the prisoners of war and the inmates of AG prison.
When did anyone punish anyone in the Islamic world for abusing prisoners? There is a definite legal difference and it is obviously important or they would not be in AG. So you are holding the Americans up to a standard that even the Arabs, who have the benefit of being Muslim and being able to read the Quran in the original, cannot meet? This does not strike me as fair.
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Like Nick Berg? Was he still fighting? How do you cut someone's head off on the battlefield these days? Explain a logical and coherent series of events to me that would lead you to be in a position to cut off, say, a airforce pilot's head?
Give me one reliable authentic Islamic Sharia board that would approve of something like that...none. The stories that you here from CNN or Fox cannot be trusted. they are criminals also who instigate this hatred.
kill an Airforce pilot? why not? he is a war criminal killing innocent people.
Not why, how. How do you get to cut off a pilot's head in this day of AA missiles and AK-47s?
I am not interested in searching for what you consider reliable and authenic sources. The mujihadeen found one or they would not have done it.
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Really? What makes you think it is a lie? Can we agree that Muslim borders only expanded at the expense of the Christians until, Oh I don't know, some time in the 12th century in Spain, some time in the 18th century in Eastern Europe? So that's 600 years of expanding at the expense of Western Europe and 1200 years of expanding at the expense of Eastern Europe. And you claim this is all entirely defensive?
People accepted Islam by choice not by force. Incase if you didnt know. Does expanding always has to be by force? what makes you think like that. People all over the world today are accepting Islam by force? Islam spread by sword? huh?
To change the subject is not fair. I did not say a word about why people became Muslims. I ask about the expansion of the Muslim world. And in this case, expanding was always by force. I might argue about Malaysia and Bengal, but not about Europe. What people are doing today is irrelevant.
Would you care to answer the question?
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Find me any non-Muslim population who shares a border with a Muslim population and I'll find you a population that hates Muslims and does not think they are a benign force. The only people who think that are those that live far far away from Muslims and do not deal with them (England until about 40 years ago for instance). India? China? Greece? Southern Nigeria? Russia?
Most of the Muslims in India, China, Africa, Russia accepted Islam , not because they were forced to. When Islam came to them, the kuffar attacked FIRST and then obviously the Believers had to attack to shut them up. Prove that im not right.
Again I did not mention converts. I did not mention Muslims in India, China or wherever. I said that people with firsthand knowledge of Muslims tend not to like them contrary to your claims. Are you denying that?
What was the provocation that led Muslims to attack China? What was the provocation that led the Muslims in China to rise in rebellion?
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Again that interesting word "innocent". Can we agree that chopping off the heads of guilty people is part of Sharia and it is not up to the guilty people to determine if they are guilty or not, and in fact they do not share any common moral values that would mean that Muslims and non-Muslims could ever agree on who was guilty or not?
So according to your morals people attacking the Muslim civilians fall under the category of "innocent" ?
Dodging the question again. And again it is a matter of intention. If they did not know, if they did not mean to, if they took every opportunity to avoid it and it happened accidentally, then yes they are innocent. Islam has a similar rule. Why do you think they are not?
ReplyPowered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.