PDA

View Full Version : Islam extremists,,are they blessed Muslims or cursed Muslims?



D.Y.R#7XTRUST
12-16-2006, 11:28 PM
Islam extremists,,are they blessed Muslims or cursed Muslims? I mean the ones that take the Quran literally. The ones who believe they have done well in Allahs eyes by destroying a so called idol or a system that wars against theirs.

What do you believe?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Abdul Fattah
12-16-2006, 11:44 PM
Well your question is based on the assumption that the more litteral and radical aproach you have on Islam will eventyually lead you to terrorism which is in fact a wrongfull picture portraited by the media. Things are far more complexer then this. The crimes commited by terrorists are a direct violation of the rules of Islam itself. So terrorism requires much more then just a radical aproach to Islam, it also requires for the terrorist to ignore many rules of his religion and twist and misinterpret information.

I would be considered radical according to western defenition of it, but the last thing I'd do is commit such gruesome mass murders.
Reply

chacha_jalebi
12-16-2006, 11:44 PM
well what is a extremist?

if you take the bible or the torah word for word & follow it, then ur an extremist in your religion :D

if Allah (swt) commands summin, and we do it, then thats good :D, but sum ayahs were revealed for a certain situation in the Prophet (saw) life, for example surah tauba :D we can take lesson from them if a situation like that arises, but there aint a situation like that so personally i dont think they apply to us!
Reply

FBI
12-16-2006, 11:46 PM
:sl:

Define: an extrimist.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Keltoi
12-16-2006, 11:54 PM
In the context of Islam, or Christianity for that matter, I would consider one as extremist if they commit acts of murder, whether it be car bombs, suicide bombs, beheading, etc, and hide behind the veil of religion to justify it to themselves and others. I consider Eric Rudolph, the abortion clinic doctor, to be an extremist. I would also consider Zarqawi to be an extremist. Whether you are using the Quran or the Bible, committing acts of murder and brutality and justifying it as the will of God is an extremist mindset in my opinion. I would hope all of us would agree that God is not about murder, bombs, suicide, and beheadings.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
12-16-2006, 11:58 PM
Originally Posted by D.Y.R#7XTRUST
Islam extremists,,are they blessed Muslims or cursed Muslims? I mean the ones that take the Quran literally. The ones who believe they have done well in Allahs eyes by destroying a so called idol or a system that wars against theirs.

What do you believe?
When I hear their words and see what it is the world has taught them, I become sad in knowing they believed they had no other option left. I don't believe they 'enjoy' death and destruction, but more they have grown to accept it and to seek what comes from it. They believe they're being tested, and perhaps they are, but I would personally prefer the issues to be resolved on the level of intelligence that on the level of flesh.

Out of all I've seen, from everyone's different sides, perhaps their truth isn't the real problem. Maybe the presentation of that truth is to blame. For instance, if I told you the only way to leave this world is by Death, no one would argue with me... because it is something we can all see and we all know it. It doesn't matter what your religion is, what your gender is or what your race or species is. Death is that well known here.

But where matters of religion are concerned, conflicts have occured and were not resolved forcing the people to follow the different leaders and these people are now caught between the conflict of these leaders. It isn't that the conflicts can't be resolved... but the people are made to suffer because the leaders won't, even though they're the ones who caused the disputes in the first place. Why are these leaders so lazy?

Because it takes work to resolve a dispute on the level of intelligence. It's up to you to find a way to present your complaint in a way that everyone can understand it. You have to face off with the ones you're making accusations against and you would have to pay attention to every word they had to say, as well as keep track of your own.

Back in the ancient days, it was considered a serious offense to make an accusation against another person. It was lawful, but would require both parties involved, the accuser and the accused, to enter a chamber together and basically kiss their lives good-bye until the matter was perfectly settled between them. They had to prove their complaints to each other in private, not in front of other people. Why? So their disputes would not be allowed to pollute the community and breed dissent among the people faster than a plague... which is where we all are now. And also, for dignity.

These men should not have to blow up buildings to be heard and answered, but they're soldiers. It's all they have. Maybe if the leaders were more willing to do the work they are supposed to be doing, these men wouldn't need to?

It isn't like they don't have valid complaints. Ah, the old 'Pen vs Sword' thing.

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
12-17-2006, 12:15 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
I would consider one as extremist if they commit acts of murder, whether it be car bombs, suicide bombs, beheading, etc, and hide behind the veil of religion to justify it to themselves and others.... SNIP... I would hope all of us would agree that God is not about murder, bombs, suicide, and beheadings.
This goes nowhere but in circles though! It's just as whacky as the whole: He said, she said, they said, we said - gossip-mobile. To call a person a terrorist based on your specs, the out-come would change in acordance with the times. We blasted the hell out of Iraq, and after that, they blasted the hell out of Iraq. Many people have said Shock and Awe was terrorism, and in my files, which are extremely detailed, our armies did open fire and kill a ton of civilians. During Shock and Awe, we even destroyed a wedding party, so yes, I do go off when I hear everyone **** Zarqawi because one of his men did the same thing... in Amman (President Bush's favorite digs, by the way). Everything else is just insult to injury from then onward. Beheadings? Well, gee! Didn't the Saudis just behead six drug smugglers? Did anyone tell the Saudis to stop executing people in that way? And who are WE to complain about humane death, when we're in the middle of debating whether or not lethal injection is humane? Ya know? Ye who is free of sin may cast the first stone, but from where I'm standing, these men are being accused by men who are being accused!

And it only seems like it's based in religion because there simply is no separation of church and state like there was here, and only very recently I might add.

What a nutty world.

Ninth Scribe
Reply

FBI
12-17-2006, 12:16 AM
:sl:

would consider one as extremist if they commit acts of murder,
Do you mean killings or unjust Killings?
Reply

D.Y.R#7XTRUST
12-17-2006, 12:16 AM
The plain and simple definition of extremist is this: (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm; "extremist political views"; "radical opinions on education"; "an ultra conservative"

Now am I saying that you are an extremist if you take the Bible and or quran literally. NO But for an example if a person steals and you cut off their hands or feet, would this be of God? Would they be praised for there falling the quran?
Reply

D.Y.R#7XTRUST
12-17-2006, 12:22 AM
Originally Posted by D.Y.R#7XTRUST
The plain and simple definition of extremist is this: (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm; "extremist political views"; "radical opinions on education"; "an ultra conservative"

Now am I saying that you are an extremist if you take the Bible and or quran literally. NO But for an example if a person steals and you cut off their hands or feet, would this be of God? Would they be praised for there falling the quran?

I would also like to keep the world trade center situation out of this question. Also I am not talking about terrorism, but the law of the quran.
Reply

FBI
12-17-2006, 12:25 AM
:sl:

But for an example if a person steals and you cut off their hands or feet, would this be of God? Would they be praised for there falling the quran?
Yes under islamic law people who steal have their hands cut off, but this is only done under an islamic state. And Yes they would be praised for following the teachings of islam.
Reply

D.Y.R#7XTRUST
12-17-2006, 12:28 AM
Originally Posted by FBI
:sl:

Yes under islamic law people who steal have their hands cut off, but this is only done under an islamic state. And Yes they would be praised for following the teachings of islam.
Also in an Islamic state, they believe stoning a women caught in adultery is just. Would they also be praised for following the Quran?
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
12-17-2006, 12:34 AM
Originally Posted by D.Y.R#7XTRUST
I am not talking about terrorism, but the law of the quran.
Well, then I would have to ask you, by which definition? And therein lies the whole problem. Scholars have no way to debate these issues to produce a uniform standard. When they disagree, they split the people up into their different sides. Some believe in suicide belts. Some do not. And the thousand other issues that exist that affect the way in which each group of people DEFINES... Islam.

I recommend an Assembly of Scholars. One who is especially willing to hear EVERYONE! Not just the ones who happen to agree with them.

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Abdul Fattah
12-17-2006, 12:41 AM
Originally Posted by D.Y.R#7XTRUST
The plain and simple definition of extremist is this: (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm; "extremist political views"; "radical opinions on education"; "an ultra conservative"

Now am I saying that you are an extremist if you take the Bible and or quran literally. NO But for an example if a person steals and you cut off their hands or feet, would this be of God? Would they be praised for there falling the quran?
"Beyond the norm" is relative your norm. In a way one could say every single person is an extremist depending on who sets the norm then.

As for your example the rules on theft are not as simple as that. there are many criteria before such a punisment can be aplied.
Reply

SirDemonic
12-17-2006, 01:02 AM
extremist? ignore them, They take islam to heart,

Love something so much can lead to hatred :grumbling
Reply

D.Y.R#7XTRUST
12-17-2006, 01:03 AM
Originally Posted by steve
"Beyond the norm" is relative your norm. In a way one could say every single person is an extremist depending on who sets the norm then.

As for your example the rules on theft are not as simple as that. there are many criteria before such a punisment can be aplied.
I knew that statement about what is norm would come up in this discussion. So I will narrow it down to the norm in Islamic faith and Islamic rule.

O.K, lets focus on the topic of theft. What would be the criteria in a situation where an individual steals to feed his family. (Under Islamic rule).

Thank You.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
12-17-2006, 01:09 AM
Originally Posted by steve
"Beyond the norm" is relative your norm. In a way one could say every single person is an extremist depending on who sets the norm then.
Exactly. We have people right here in the U.S.A. who were shocked by the way in which Bush invaded Iraq. It was certainly not considered... the norm.

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
12-17-2006, 01:12 AM
Originally Posted by D.Y.R#7XTRUST
O.K, lets focus on the topic of theft. What would be the criteria in a situation where an individual steals to feed his family. (Under Islamic rule).
But wait... I thought under Islamic rule, there is Charity. Where there is Charity, why would anyone be caught stealing... to feed their family? :?

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
12-17-2006, 01:14 AM
Yes, under Islamic rule, but if Shariah isnt correctly established, there will be. Just look at some countries...well i think lol.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
12-17-2006, 01:22 AM
Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe
Well, then I would have to ask you, by which definition? And therein lies the whole problem. Scholars have no way to debate these issues to produce a uniform standard. When they disagree, they split the people up into their different sides. Some believe in suicide belts. Some do not. And the thousand other issues that exist that affect the way in which each group of people DEFINES... Islam.

I recommend an Assembly of Scholars. One who is especially willing to hear EVERYONE! Not just the ones who happen to agree with them.

Ninth Scribe
I disagree, scolars do not disagree on suicide belt they all condemn it. And if you look at the source of Islam, the quran and the hadeeth you'd see why. Just because there are some people who seem to think that it is an islamic interpretation doesn't necesairly make it so. And scolarship is not like a democracy, truth is not found by election but by logical arguments. If some people chose to ignore these arguments, and thus ignore hadeeths and qur'anic verses then their personal opinion shouldn't matter. That opinion is then their belief. Not Islamic belief. Hadeeth and qur'an do not leave that much room for interpretation. When scolars do agree, it's usually more like one saying something is forbidden and another saying it's discouraged. So it's not like they directly oppose one another.
Reply

Woodrow
12-17-2006, 01:24 AM
You have raised a number of interesting questions. Many of these questions have been answered in depth in other threads. So at this point I will not go into detail on them.

Something to keep in mind is not all people who wear the name Muslim follow Islam as they should.

At this moment I will just discuss the issue of stoning that you brought up. I will post a link to the proper thread in a few minutes.

The point being that although women have been stoned for adultry. In the entire history of the Qur'an not a single woman has ever been stoned in accordance with Islamic law. Although women have been stoned the stoning was in violation of the Qur'an.

Stoning of a woman for Adultry is nearly impossible to be carried out as a punishement if the Qur'an is followed.

Islam is truly a religion of Peace and Tolerance. However as in all religions we do have those who act with only partial knowledge or out of defiance of the Qur'an.

In a few minutes I will do another post with links to the threads that refer to many of your questions.
Reply

Woodrow
12-17-2006, 02:27 AM
Here is a good thread about stoning:
The punishment of stoning is the hadd punishment for the married adulterer, which essentially entails that it functions exclusively as a deterrent. Here's why. To apply this punishment you need four witnesses to the actual act of penetration who observed it from four different angles and if there is even the slightest contradiction in the most minute details of their testimony, they are punished with eighty lashes for false accusation of adultery. Thus, the implementation of the hadd punishment for zina is a practical impossibility. As the fatwâ committee under the supervision of Shaykh 'Abdul-Wahâb At-Turaryrî notes:

It is not enough for four people to show up at court and give testimony. The witnesses and their backgrounds have to be carefully scrutinized by the courts to determine their trustworthiness and honesty. They have to be able to demonstrate that they saw the crime. It is not easy to explain how one was able to witness such an act without being guilty of any wrongdoing oneself. The witnesses have to see actual sexual penetration. This is not an easy thing to explain.

If the condition of four witnesses of determined trustworthiness is not fulfilled, each of those who accused the person of adultery is given 80 lashes with a whip as the punishment for bearing false witness.

Allah says: “And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations), flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors.” [Sûrah al-Nûr: 4]

The punishments for fornication and adultery are designed more to protect society from the open practice of licentious sexual behavior than they are designed to punish people.

It is nearly impossible to get a conviction for adultery except in a case where it is carried out in public for all eyes to see. With this threat of severe punishment, people will keep their evil deeds concealed and society as a whole will be protected.

It is worth noting that in the 1400 years of Islamic history, these stringent conditions have never been met even once. And due to the deterrent effect, sexual immorality is suffocated and eradicated in an Islamic society.
To see the full thread click here: http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-...hlight=Stoning

Nearly every question you have asked has been answered several times in various threads. If you use the search option above you will find information about nearly every subject.

As far as our attitudes about extremists. I can only speak for myself.

First if you mean an extremist as being a True Muslim [Muslim is Arabic meaning: a person who submits to the will of God(swt)] Then I am totaly in favor of them and hope I can have the faith they do.

Now if you mean a person who uses Islam as an excuse to commit acts of Terrorism, I have no use for them and can only pray that they will repent before they face judgement of God(swt)

Then if you mean by extremist as being a person who follows Sharia law. That I can not relate to, as in todays world there are no Nations that are under true Sharia Law.

However, from what little I know of Sharia law, I would say it is designed for peace and high moral behavior and that it can only be applied to Muslims and not to Non-Muslims except where the Sharia Laws and what would equate to Civil or Criminal law are the same.
Reply

Umar001
12-17-2006, 03:39 AM
Originally Posted by D.Y.R#7XTRUST
The plain and simple definition of extremist is this: (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm; "extremist political views"; "radical opinions on education"; "an ultra conservative"

Now am I saying that you are an extremist if you take the Bible and or quran literally. NO But for an example if a person steals and you cut off their hands or feet, would this be of God? Would they be praised for there falling the quran?
Those that follow the Qu'ran and Sunnah of course are to be praised, just as those who applied the law of God in the time of Moses should be praised for sacrifising their lives at war as God commanded, for carrying out the stoning that God commanded and excecuting His law. So yes, if a person follows the law of Islam properly then it is very good, that would not be an extermist though, unless you also hold Moses and Jesus to be extremist.

Eesa :)
Reply

Zulkiflim
12-17-2006, 03:44 AM
Originally Posted by D.Y.R#7XTRUST
Also in an Islamic state, they believe stoning a women caught in adultery is just. Would they also be praised for following the Quran?
Salaam,

Adultery requires 2..
A man and a woman...

Both will be punished either stoning or 100 lashes..depending on many things..

I think this has been covered on..

In Islam when you marry you take a vow with Allah,you do not forsake your spouse for your own lust.
You do not forsake your children for your own lust
You do not foraske your responsibilites as a wife,a mother a sister,an aunt,a daught or if you are a man,,as a father,a husband,a brother,a uncle,a son

I find it perplexing that the western world glorify when people fall in and out of love leavint the childrena to bear the consequences of their own lust..

Love is good but it also comes with responsibility.
And thus the laws...
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
12-17-2006, 06:47 PM
Originally Posted by steve
I disagree, scolars do not disagree on suicide belt they all condemn it.
No, they don't. What has taken place here is that one group of scholars condemns another group of scholars. They refuse to hear each other - but merely pretending they don't exist will not make the disputes go away. They will have to be resolved, preferably soon, or they will divide the Ummah even further. To date, not one of them has earned their wings in this respect. They talk behind each-others backs, in front of television cameras, or over each-other's heads... but the day will come when they will be required to settle these matters face-to-face. One concession. One demand - and they'll have to split the difference in terms of blame for the harm some of them have caused. I would like to see this day come before my time runs out here, since it is MY soul that is caught up in the struggle between them, not to mention the many others.

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Abdul Fattah
12-18-2006, 12:25 AM
Originally Posted by D.Y.R#7XTRUST
I knew that statement about what is norm would come up in this discussion. So I will narrow it down to the norm in Islamic faith and Islamic rule.

O.K, lets focus on the topic of theft. What would be the criteria in a situation where an individual steals to feed his family. (Under Islamic rule).

Thank You.
Sorry, it seems I didn't see that question earlier, so with slight delay, here's the answer.

The criteria for cutting of a hand are:
  • There isn’t any doubt as to the guilt of the suspect.
  • The value of the stolen goods is something of great value.
  • The thief didn’t steal out of need/poverty.
  • The thief didn’t return the goods and seeks forgiveness of the victim of the theft, before the case enters the judicial system.
  • The culprit is a sane adult and the crime was not committed under duress.
  • The goods were legally owned by someone and held in proper storage.
  • It is not the case of a child stealing from parents or parents stealing from children or one spouse from another.
  • The person isn’t permitted to enter the place from where he stole because otherwise there is no proper custody.
  • The punishment is not applied to the non-Muslim living in the Muslim state.


So in the specific case you mentioned the punishment cannot be given for two reasons: one it's not something of great value, and it was out of need.
Reply

Pygoscelis
12-18-2006, 12:33 AM
So um let me get this straight.

Muslims who'd support chopping off hands for theft and stoning people for adultery in an Islamic state are NOT extreme?

That is a very scary thought to a secular person.
Reply

Woodrow
12-18-2006, 12:41 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
So um let me get this straight.

Muslims who'd support chopping off hands for theft and stoning people for adultery in an Islamic state are NOT extreme?

That is a very scary thought to a secular person.
Not when you stop and think neither is likely to happen and then it would be under extreme circumstances. Also notice, under Sharia Law, neither would apply to non-Muslims. They apply to Muslims because we are aware of the circumstances and accept them.
Reply

MuSe
12-18-2006, 12:47 AM
Media have given wrong images of muslims and the righteous ones are now paying the price for it as they are considered possible terrorists. However, how can a practising believer, a slave of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) be a terrorist, when he follows a religion of peace and love?

The problem is that even other muslims are influenced by this image that is presented by media, certainly in non-islamic countries. For example, I try my best to apply islamic rules in my life. But the more I do this, the more (muslim) friends I lose. A lot of them call me fundamentalist, a term with which I actually have no problem because I think that following the fundamental rules in our beautiful religion, is a good thing and not a bad one. Only problem with this is that when they use this term, they also imply the meaning of extreme muslim which in their book is someone who is capable of committing a suicidal bomb attack.

Luckily there are still others who support me in my decisions and who don't suspect me of terrorist plans just because I fast 2 days a week...:mmokay:
Reply

Pygoscelis
12-18-2006, 12:58 AM
Originally Posted by MuSe
However, how can a practising believer, a slave of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) be a terrorist, when he follows a religion of peace and love?
I have difficulty reconsiling chopping off appendages and stoning people with peace and love.

I am glad to read in the post above that this wouldn't apply to non muslims in a muslim country though.

Would it apply to muslim children? Is special consideration given to children and wives who are economically dependant on husbands so can not realistically leave him and declare themselves to be non-muslim?

How do you determine if somebody is truly muslim in enforcing these laws? What would you do with somebody who upon sentencing declares themselves to no longer be muslim?
Reply

MuSe
12-18-2006, 01:01 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I have difficulty reconsiling chopping off appendages and stoning people with peace and love.

I am glad to read in the post above that this wouldn't apply to non muslims in a muslim country though.

Would it apply to muslim children? Is special consideration given to children and wives who are economically dependant on husbands so can not realistically leave him and declare themselves to be non-muslim?
Like brother Woodrow already said, my friend, these rules only apply under certain very extreme circumstances. The Shariah-ruling really doesn't go lightly over these kinds of punishments.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
12-18-2006, 01:50 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I have difficulty reconsiling chopping off appendages and stoning people with peace and love.

I am glad to read in the post above that this wouldn't apply to non muslims in a muslim country though.

Would it apply to muslim children? Is special consideration given to children and wives who are economically dependant on husbands so can not realistically leave him and declare themselves to be non-muslim?

How do you determine if somebody is truly muslim in enforcing these laws? What would you do with somebody who upon sentencing declares themselves to no longer be muslim?
* There isn’t any doubt as to the guilt of the suspect.
* The value of the stolen goods is something of great value.
* The thief didn’t steal out of need/poverty.
* The thief didn’t return the goods and seeks forgiveness of the victim of the theft, before the case enters the judicial system.
* The culprit is a sane adult and the crime was not committed under duress.
* The goods were legally owned by someone and held in proper storage.
* It is not the case of a child stealing from parents or parents stealing from children or one spouse from another.
* The person isn’t permitted to enter the place from where he stole because otherwise there is no proper custody.
* The punishment is not applied to the non-Muslim living in the Muslim state.

Nope childrens are unaffected to :)
Reply

Zulkiflim
12-18-2006, 02:02 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
So um let me get this straight.

Muslims who'd support chopping off hands for theft and stoning people for adultery in an Islamic state are NOT extreme?

That is a very scary thought to a secular person.
Salaam,

What is more scary is that thieves run around thieving,,and even wehn caught....continue to steal..

And the affect especially by the powerful and rich are devastating to the poor....and powerless..

The US is a good exaple,the republical are plagued by stories of corruption and scandal,,but what has happened to these people??

Nothing,thus teaching that crime pays...
Reply

Woodrow
12-18-2006, 02:09 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I have difficulty reconsiling chopping off appendages and stoning people with peace and love.

I am glad to read in the post above that this wouldn't apply to non muslims in a muslim country though.

Would it apply to muslim children? Is special consideration given to children and wives who are economically dependant on husbands so can not realistically leave him and declare themselves to be non-muslim?

How do you determine if somebody is truly muslim in enforcing these laws? What would you do with somebody who upon sentencing declares themselves to no longer be muslim?
How do you determine if somebody is truly muslim in enforcing these laws? What would you do with somebody who upon sentencing declares themselves to no longer be muslim?

If you are living in a Sharia country, there would be no question of the ruling authorities being Muslim.

Now what would happen to a person suddenly declaring they were no longer Muslim upon sentencing. That is one reason why apostasy by a Muslim can be punishable by death in a Sharia ruled country.

Children are exempt from all laws untill at least the age of puberty.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
12-18-2006, 02:30 AM
I think what he meant how do we know if the culprit is truly a muslim. Well we can't look into someone's head o know what he feels, so this is actually a good question. I'd say a lot can be established by behavioral patterns, for example if someone is known to pray 5 times a day, and so on. But then again none of this is conclusive. Well I guess if you're not truly a muslim but you pretend to be one, facing to be trialed as a muslim is just the price you would have to pay then. I'm not certain about that last comment though, Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows and I do not.

If the person declares not to be a muslim (and claimed not to be a muslim at the time he commited the crime to?) I think then he is not to be trailed as one. Again, I don't know and Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows. I'm really not qualified since I don't know enough about Islamic law to answer those questions.
Reply

Pygoscelis
12-18-2006, 03:14 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
If you are living in a Sharia country, there would be no question of the ruling authorities being Muslim.
Well yes, thats a given. Or at least them claiming to be in a claimed Sharia country (speaking of the practical reality instead of the theory).

Now what would happen to a person suddenly declaring they were no longer Muslim upon sentencing. That is one reason why apostasy by a Muslim can be punishable by death in a Sharia ruled country.
Really? :muddlehea

I think I'm reading this wrong. Its left a pretty shocking image.

If a muslim commits theft, and thus would sentenced to have his hands cut off, and he then declares apostacy. It is then proper under this law that he be killed?

I'd have figured that his declaration of apostacy would have to be taken as genuine, as a true believer in Islam would have more to fear from Allah's retribution after death than from any punishment meted out on earth. Is that incorrect?

[/QUOTE]
Reply

Abdul Fattah
12-18-2006, 03:23 AM
I thought the only time when apostation can be punished with death is when the person commits treason or another crime that calls for death penalty at the same time, and hence that in other words the apostasy itself is not punished.

Oh wait I think I got it, what you meant was, if the person has been acting as muslim (like a spy) and then apostates, right?
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
12-18-2006, 03:24 AM
^^ Thats what I thought. Theres three conditions and one of them is treason.
Reply

Woodrow
12-18-2006, 04:23 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Well yes, thats a given. Or at least them claiming to be in a claimed Sharia country (speaking of the practical reality instead of the theory).



Really? :muddlehea

I think I'm reading this wrong. Its left a pretty shocking image.

If a muslim commits theft, and thus would sentenced to have his hands cut off, and he then declares apostacy. It is then proper under this law that he be killed?

I'd have figured that his declaration of apostacy would have to be taken as genuine, as a true believer in Islam would have more to fear from Allah's retribution after death than from any punishment meted out on earth. Is that incorrect?
[/QUOTE]

There is no way a Muslim would commit apostacy to save his hands. About the only way that would happen is if the person was not Muslim and only claimed to be one to spy against the government. Which is treason as there is no seperation of State and religion.

I am not saying that it is impossible for a situation would come up were a person would convert from Islam at the last moment. But, that is a very hypothetical situation and not likely to occur.


I am far from an Authority on Sharia Law. However My experiences with it while I was non-Muslim I can say I was always treated with understanding and tolerance. That was my personal experiences during my travels and living throughout North Africa and parts of Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
12-18-2006, 04:29 AM
My two cents....

I was thinking (yes it happens from time to time) what if the west left muslim lands, would the extrimists have any other reason to continue this 'jihad'?
Reply

Woodrow
12-18-2006, 04:41 AM
Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
My two cents....

I was thinking (yes it happens from time to time) what if the west left muslim lands, would the extrimists have any other reason to continue this 'jihad'?
Actually Jihad is a poor choice of word although many are calling it a Jihad. A jihad need not be extreme and is primarily an inner conflict and not against people.

Now to try to answer your question. The influx of the west is adding fuel to the extreme element and their action are quite often not in accordance with Islam. At the moment the mid-east is like a forest fire. We can identify the causes that ignited it, but simply removing the original match is not going to cause the flames to diminish. It will now take more then the west leaving, it is going to require a return to the Qur'an and stable just governments to bring peace.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
12-18-2006, 04:58 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
There is no way a Muslim would commit apostacy to save his hands. About the only way that would happen is if the person was not Muslim and only claimed to be one to spy against the government. Which is treason as there is no seperation of State and religion.

I am not saying that it is impossible for a situation would come up were a person would convert from Islam at the last moment. But, that is a very hypothetical situation and not likely to occur.


I am far from an Authority on Sharia Law. However My experiences with it while I was non-Muslim I can say I was always treated with understanding and tolerance. That was my personal experiences during my travels and living throughout North Africa and parts of Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
Brother I hate to play the devil's advocate here, but this got me thinking, what about a person who has never truly believed but just said he did because he was raised a Muslim and didn't want to disappoint his family, or didn't want to bring attention to himself? I'm inclined to think that in this case he should neither have his hand cut of for the theft, neither be executed for apostacy, but once again. I don't know an Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows.
Reply

Woodrow
12-18-2006, 05:19 AM
Originally Posted by steve
Brother I hate to play the devil's advocate here, but this got me thinking, what about a person who has never truly believed but just said he did because he was raised a Muslim and didn't want to disappoint his family, or didn't want to bring attention to himself? I'm inclined to think that in this case he should neither have his hand cut of for the theft, neither be executed for apostacy, but once again. I don't know an Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows.
You bring up a very interesting point. A very hyothetical point that is not very likely to occur. But, I must say it looks possible. I do not have sufficient knowledge to properly answer your question.


My own opinion. A person who presents himself as being what he is not, is a hypocrite. In my own opinion I believe a person should reap the rewards and the punishments of what his deception brings. If a person presents himself as a Muslim for any reason, isn't it just that they get treated under the laws of Islam? Fortunatly I am in no posistion to judge and I only know that Allah(swt) is all mercifull if we follow His Word and do not try to alter it to suit our own needs.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
12-18-2006, 03:45 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
What would you do with somebody who upon sentencing declares themselves to no longer be muslim?
That's treason, and even in the United States, treason is punishable by death. The perception is all that is different. The Muslims do not enjoy a separation between church and state. The United States does, but that was a very recent event. In either case, treason is still dealt with the same way. This issue was brought to my attention while I was studying the Mujahideen in March, 2006:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1746943&page=1

Ninth Scribe
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
12-18-2006, 04:45 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Actually Jihad is a poor choice of word although many are calling it a Jihad. A jihad need not be extreme and is primarily an inner conflict and not against people.

Now to try to answer your question. The influx of the west is adding fuel to the extreme element and their action are quite often not in accordance with Islam. At the moment the mid-east is like a forest fire. We can identify the causes that ignited it, but simply removing the original match is not going to cause the flames to diminish. It will now take more then the west leaving, it is going to require a return to the Qur'an and stable just governments to bring peace.
Return to the Quran in muslim lands or worldwide?
Reply

Pygoscelis
12-18-2006, 05:23 PM
About the only way that would happen is if the person was not Muslim and only claimed to be one to spy against the government.
[/quote]

Is this the only reason a person would claim to be a muslim under muslim rule?

And it brings up another interesting point. Only muslims can be in government in a muslim nation, correct? So Islam and Democracy are incompatible?
Reply

Pygoscelis
12-18-2006, 05:25 PM
[QUOTE=Ninth_Scribe;600590]That's treason/QUOTE]

That's where you lose me. Why is apostacy treason?
Reply

Abdul Fattah
12-18-2006, 09:47 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
About the only way that would happen is if the person was not Muslim and only claimed to be one to spy against the government.
Is this the only reason a person would claim to be a muslim under muslim rule?

And it brings up another interesting point. Only muslims can be in government in a muslim nation, correct? So Islam and Democracy are incompatible?[/QUOTE]


yes it's defenitly incompatible. Islam claims to be perfect, so if you change something that is already perfect, you get something less perfect. Therefor a system that would allow elected people to change the laws is not good.
Reply

Woodrow
12-18-2006, 11:25 PM
Originally Posted by steve
Is this the only reason a person would claim to be a muslim under muslim rule?

And it brings up another interesting point. Only muslims can be in government in a muslim nation, correct? So Islam and Democracy are incompatible?

yes it's defenitly incompatible. Islam claims to be perfect, so if you change something that is already perfect, you get something less perfect. Therefor a system that would allow elected people to change the laws is not good.[/QUOTE]

The point about Islam and Democracy being incompatable is incorrect in some aspects. A Muslim could live compatably in a TRUE Democracy in which he is permitted to live as a Muslim with no Government interference. A Muslim has no problems living under non-Islamic law as long as the law does not require him to do something in violation of Islam. Such as requiring a Muslim Store owner to sell Pork or Alcohol products.

In an Islamic country a non-Muslim would only have difficulty if his desires were for things that are Haram in Islam. However, being a non-Muslim he would be exempt from Sharia laws.
Reply

Goku
12-19-2006, 02:09 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
. Only muslims can be in government in a muslim nation, correct?
Incorrect. There are non-Muslims in a Muslim nations' Government. For example, Lebanon has posts specially for Christians and Muslims. The President post is for Christian, Prime Minister post for Muslim, etc. Even Iran has non-Muslims in Government.
Reply

Malaikah
12-19-2006, 02:14 AM
:sl:

^Just because they are doing that, doesnt mean it is allowed. I do not know whether it is allowed or not but if you want to prove that it is, refer to the sunnah inshaallah.
Reply

MuSe
12-19-2006, 11:32 AM
Originally Posted by Goku
Incorrect. There are non-Muslims in a Muslim nations' Government. For example, Lebanon has posts specially for Christians and Muslims. The President post is for Christian, Prime Minister post for Muslim, etc. Even Iran has non-Muslims in Government.
I'm sorry brother, but that's not too great a proof. Has Lebanon got a khilafa system installed?
Reply

Abdul Fattah
12-20-2006, 03:27 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
yes it's defenitly incompatible. Islam claims to be perfect, so if you change something that is already perfect, you get something less perfect. Therefor a system that would allow elected people to change the laws is not good.

The point about Islam and Democracy being incompatable is incorrect in some aspects. A Muslim could live compatably in a TRUE Democracy in which he is permitted to live as a Muslim with no Government interference. A Muslim has no problems living under non-Islamic law as long as the law does not require him to do something in violation of Islam. Such as requiring a Muslim Store owner to sell Pork or Alcohol products.

In an Islamic country a non-Muslim would only have difficulty if his desires were for things that are Haram in Islam. However, being a non-Muslim he would be exempt from Sharia laws.
Yeah you're right. What I meant was that Islam as a system of governing a country is not compatible with democracy; not that muslims can't live in a democracy.
Reply

New_Muslim
12-21-2006, 06:04 AM
I think there is a difference between a fundamentalist and an extremist, though this can be a blurry line.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
12-21-2006, 09:30 PM
Originally Posted by New_Muslim
I think there is a difference between a fundamentalist and an extremist, though this can be a blurry line.
I'm having alot of trouble with the definition of extremist. Zarqawi was given this title, but every time I read this man's words (as opposed to listening to some half-baked western interpretation of them), the definition of "extreme" goes through that many more changes.

According to western media, this guy wanted to take over the whole world and make it Muslim, but Al-Furqan Foundation for Media Production, the official publisher of media for the Islamic State of Iraq, just released a 33 page interview. The first part confirmed for me that he did in fact threaten Israel before the February 22nd bombing of the Askyara mosque (which is important confirmation... for another time). But the second part blew me away, a statement he made concerning his desire to conquer the world:

We fight in the way of Allah, until the law of Allah is implemented, and the first step is to expel the enemy, then establish the Islamic state, then we set forth to conquer the lands of Muslims to return them back to us, then after that, we fight the kuffar (disbelievers) until they accept one of the three.

Now, I'm no expert on Zarqawi's religion, but I do take a strong interest in all of his published statements... and this one has me completely fixated. Just what does he mean by: "until they accept one of the three."

One of the three... what? Am I about to discover he had respect for Judaism and Christianity as well as Islam? It has me curious because that's exactly what Azrael said... he called them the "three kings".

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Keltoi
12-21-2006, 09:52 PM
Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe
I'm having alot of trouble with the definition of extremist. Zarqawi was given this title, but every time I read this man's words (as opposed to listening to some half-baked western interpretation of them), the definition of "extreme" goes through that many more changes.

According to western media, this guy wanted to take over the whole world and make it Muslim, but Al-Furqan Foundation for Media Production, the official publisher of media for the Islamic State of Iraq, just released a 33 page interview. The first part confirmed for me that he did in fact threaten Israel before the February 22nd bombing of the Askyara mosque (which is important confirmation... for another time). But the second part blew me away, a statement he made concerning his desire to conquer the world:

We fight in the way of Allah, until the law of Allah is implemented, and the first step is to expel the enemy, then establish the Islamic state, then we set forth to conquer the lands of Muslims to return them back to us, then after that, we fight the kuffar (disbelievers) until they accept one of the three.

Now, I'm no expert on Zarqawi's religion, but I do take a strong interest in all of his published statements... and this one has me completely fixated. Just what does he mean by: "until they accept one of the three."

One of the three... what? Am I about to discover he had respect for Judaism and Christianity as well as Islam? It has me curious because that's exactly what Azrael said... he called them the "three kings".

Ninth Scribe
The West considered Zarqawi extremist because he sawed the heads off people on a videotape. Perhaps that isn't extreme, or perhaps you don't believe it. Either way, that was the primary reasoning as far as the Western people are concerned. As for the governments of the U.K, U.S., and Jordan, to name a few, they wanted Zarqawi dead. The U.S. and the U.K. for obvious reasons, and Jordan because of terrorist attacks he was responsible for.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
12-22-2006, 05:55 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
The West considered Zarqawi extremist because he sawed the heads off people on a videotape. Perhaps that isn't extreme, or perhaps you don't believe it. Either way, that was the primary reasoning as far as the Western people are concerned. As for the governments of the U.K, U.S., and Jordan, to name a few, they wanted Zarqawi dead. The U.S. and the U.K. for obvious reasons, and Jordan because of terrorist attacks he was responsible for.
Yes, I understand all the accusations, and now that he's dead, Bush gets to hold his meetings in Amman, but this thread isn't about his guilt or innocence. It's about what they believe - how else can one decide if they are blessed Muslims or cursed Muslims?

But, I'm having problems trying to understand what was meant by "until they accept one of the three. - which appears to me to be a very powerful statement. One I wouldn't want to be guilty of misinterpreting.

And don't get all fired up on the romance - no one wins my soul by the sword. That's just too easy. They'll have to prove themselves if they want the heart of the people. This is something we have always disagreed on, but Ichose his words because he was the only one who came right out and spoke them. He always put his cards on the table.

Ninth Scribe
Reply

England
12-22-2006, 09:07 PM
Blessed or cursed muslims? If Islam is about peace then they aren't muslims at all....
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
12-22-2006, 09:10 PM
True. If a person commits harm in the name of Islam, claiming to be Muslim, they wouldnt be considered one. But if they r still in the fold of Islam, they're going to have to pay for their actions.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
12-22-2006, 09:51 PM
Originally Posted by Tayyaba
True. If a person commits harm in the name of Islam, claiming to be Muslim, they wouldnt be considered one. But if they r still in the fold of Islam, they're going to have to pay for their actions.
Well, as I said before, if it's in defense (eg: a country attacks them in the name of something else... like democracy), I'm having a hard time buying the line that they willfully commited harm.

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
12-22-2006, 10:10 PM
Im not talking about anything specific, im speaking generally. I dont know whether the stuff im told is true or not, so id rather not say anything.
Reply

England
12-22-2006, 10:30 PM
Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe
Well, as I said before, if it's in defense (eg: a country attacks them in the name of something else... like democracy), I'm having a hard time buying the line that they willfully commited harm.

Ninth Scribe
You can't use Iraq as an example. I wouldn't say beheading a charity worker, innocent builders or even Iraqi civilians would be an act of defence.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
12-23-2006, 02:56 AM
Originally Posted by England
You can't use Iraq as an example. I wouldn't say beheading a charity worker, innocent builders or even Iraqi civilians would be an act of defence.
It can't be defended no matter how one dresses it up - It was barbaric!
Reply

Abdul Fattah
12-23-2006, 06:13 AM
Maybe an interesting thing to add here is that we have a different defenition of extreme then in the west. According to the Islamic view, everything that is prescribed by religion is the standard way of living. Following the rules of our creature is following our very nature. So following Islam cannot be extreme by defenition. So extreme is only that which goes beyond the Islamic rules. (for example if a person would fast every day of the year). But an extremist from the western p.o.v. is someone who goes to great extend to follow his religion/ideology (and the standards of what is a great extend might be different according to different people)

So an extremist by the muslim defenition (somebody does more then he is supposed to, and more then he is allowed to) would be cursed, as his extremism is in violation with his belief.
But an extremist according to the western defenition, someone who goes to a great extend to follow his religion would be a blessed person as he tries to do as many good things as he can.

This is why I object to the media referring to terrorists as Muslim extremists. Just cause someone is extreme (from western p.o.v.) does not mean he is a terrorist.

If you would suddenly come to realize that this world is a test and that you are constantly at war with Satan who tries to make you fail. And if you would be convinced that depending on the outcome of this test you would have eternal hell or heaven. I would then not ask you if you would be willing to try follow the rules to beat Satan, since that would be pretty obvious (based on the earlier assumptions of the hypothesis). the real million-dollar-question would be: "how radical are you prepared to be for that cause?
Reply

Dawud_uk
12-23-2006, 06:27 AM
Originally Posted by D.Y.R#7XTRUST
Islam extremists,,are they blessed Muslims or cursed Muslims? I mean the ones that take the Quran literally. The ones who believe they have done well in Allahs eyes by destroying a so called idol or a system that wars against theirs.

What do you believe?
you mean a muslim who follows the Quran and example of the prophet Muhammad saws as his only guide and who therefore defends and if necessary destroys another system that is attacking or threatening them constantly and destroys idols like the giant statues in afghanistan?

such a muslim is a good muslim, though Allah knows what is in his heart and whether he is true or just pretending. such a muslim is however following the commands of Allah and his messenger saws so therefore is a good muslim.

Abu Abdullah
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
12-23-2006, 07:04 PM
Originally Posted by England
You can't use Iraq as an example. I wouldn't say beheading a charity worker, innocent builders or even Iraqi civilians would be an act of defence.
Your tune might change if the situation were reversed. If say, England was attacked and they offered money to it's starving citizens for turning in the soldiers (these who turn you in would be... civilians). But that's the old argument.

Here's something new. What makes you so sure the Mujahideen commited every act they are being accused of? I know they had nothing to do with the bombing of the Askyara mosque, and I'm closing in fast on who was responsible for that (like lightening). Also, are you aware of the fact that because the people there are starving and freezing cold or boiling hot, many of them have formed criminal gangs who are only after money? This problem of mistaken identities was actually addressed by the MSC.... or do you not hear out both sides?

You know, I was willing to name these men my enemies. I would have done that - if it weren't for the rediculous number of lies I've found circulating about them. When an administration has to resort to games of deception, their idea of truth can no longer be trusted. At least not by me! I would rather deal with an honest enemy than a lying leader... any day.

Exactly 25 years from now, you'll know more than what the tabloids are telling you.

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
12-23-2006, 07:13 PM
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
you mean a muslim who follows the Quran and example of the prophet Muhammad saws as his only guide and who therefore defends and if necessary destroys another system that is attacking or threatening them constantly and destroys idols like the giant statues in afghanistan?

such a muslim is a good muslim, though Allah knows what is in his heart and whether he is true or just pretending. such a muslim is however following the commands of Allah and his messenger saws so therefore is a good muslim.

Abu Abdullah
I was very sad to see the destruction of the statues. They were not idols, but were historical treasures. I'm sorry the Muslims felt they should be destroyed, but I expect that's exactly what happens when a people feel they are continuously threatened. Everything becomes a threat to them.

I do understand. I had the same reaction when I saw the statue of Suddam Hussein.

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Keltoi
12-23-2006, 08:29 PM
Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe
I was very sad to see the destruction of the statues. They were not idols, but were historical treasures. I'm sorry the Muslims felt they should be destroyed, but I expect that's exactly what happens when a people feel they are continuously threatened. Everything becomes a threat to them.

I do understand. I had the same reaction when I saw the statue of Suddam Hussein.

Ninth Scribe
The Taliban didn't destroy the statues because they felt "threatened", they destroyed this because of their religious doctrine.
Reply

Dawud_uk
12-24-2006, 08:33 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
The Taliban didn't destroy the statues because they felt "threatened", they destroyed this because of their religious doctrine.
for once keltoi we agree!

it is an act of worship to destroy the false idols
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
12-26-2006, 12:21 AM
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
it is an act of worship to destroy the false idols
So, if given the opportunity, would you destroy the great pyramid at Giza?

Would you destroy the Taj Mahal?

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
12-26-2006, 12:29 AM
Taj Mahal isnt a false idol...it was built by a Muslim king for his wife.
Reply

Dawud_uk
12-26-2006, 10:18 AM
Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe
So, if given the opportunity, would you destroy the great pyramid at Giza?

Would you destroy the Taj Mahal?

Ninth Scribe
yes and yes though they are not false idols. they are raised graves.

raised graves were also ordered to be destroyed lest it lead to people overly respecting the dead occupant later which could lead to people disbelieving by thinking the dead occupant had some special status with Allah so should be used as in intermediary.

the danger of not doing this can be shown in many different muslim lands as well as over the whole catholic controlled world where people visit saints to ask for their blessings and intercession with Allah.

This is disbelief so to stop it Rasoolullah saws ordered that raised graves be destroyed.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
12-27-2006, 09:06 PM
Originally Posted by Tayyaba
Taj Mahal isnt a false idol...it was built by a Muslim king for his wife.
It certainly does border on idolatry.

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
12-27-2006, 09:11 PM
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
This is disbelief so to stop it Rasoolullah saws ordered that raised graves be destroyed.
I see. So the shrines in Iraq? These are raised graves, or does this just apply to the cultures that existed before Islam?

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Dawud_uk
12-28-2006, 08:30 AM
Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe
I see. So the shrines in Iraq? These are raised graves, or does this just apply to the cultures that existed before Islam?

Ninth Scribe
yes those also. it is not the grave within which is destroyed, that is respected as someone's grave but the structure around it is destroyed yes.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
12-31-2006, 12:40 AM
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
yes those also. it is not the grave within which is destroyed, that is respected as someone's grave but the structure around it is destroyed yes.
We were sitting on one of the walls over-looking the tomb of Ezra. Azrael asked me why this place was holding up my progress (writing). I said: It's because of Zarqawi. I hopped down from the wall and walked toward the structure. If he finds out about this place... what if he blows it up?

Azrael hopped down from the wall and came to my side. He said: Well, then the sun will shine upon the land again. Maybe some flowers will grow there instead. Then he moved closer to me and said: I am not there Sheila. He whispered in my ear while pointing to my heart and said: I am right here.

OK. I suppose it makes sense...

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Akil
01-04-2007, 01:20 PM
Sorry for the last post:

but this thread isn't about his guilt or innocence. It's about what they believe - how else can one decide if they are blessed Muslims or cursed Muslims?
Piety means nothing if you’re a butcher. That’s why it matters. Who cares if you pray five times a day if you are an international terrorist wanted by half a dozen countries ?


Well, as I said before, if it's in defense (eg: a country attacks them in the name of something else... like democracy), I'm having a hard time buying the line that they willfully commited harm.
Unless someone is attacking enemy combatants they are not defending anything. For example, Hezbollah guerillas facing off the Israeli military in a pitched battle, defense. Hamas shooting rockets into random places in Israel or blowing up school buses, not defense.



As to whether extremists are good or bad Muslims, who says they are Muslim at all ?

Christianity doesn’t claim responsibility for KKK, which was surly religious or modern WARskins who are most assuredly protestant any more then than Christianity claims responsibility for the Crusades, the Reconquesta, the Inquisition, silent consent of the slave trade, manifest destiny, noninvolvement during the holocaust, priest molestation etc. etc. etc.

For example Hitler carried a bible everywhere he went, never let it go. You’ll never hear any (non wacko) call him a Christian.

Any Muslim who doesn’t follow the Quran and Sunnah the same way these monsters ignore it, is obviously apostate.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-08-2007, 11:52 PM
Originally Posted by FBI
:sl:

Define: an extrimist.
An extremist, by definition, is one who at the extremes, i.e. outside the norms. If we are talking about a group of people who adhere to a particular faith, then extremists would be people who are outside the norms of their faith.

Rather than asking what people here think of extremists, I would like to ask my Muslim brothers and sisters if they view those who participate in car bombings of marketplaces in Baghdad, suicide bombings of buses in Israel, flying of airplanes into buildings in New York, or kidnapping of journalists in Pakistan as living within the norms and ethical values of Islam?
Reply

Woodrow
02-09-2007, 12:05 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
An extremist, by definition, is one who at the extremes, i.e. outside the norms. If we are talking about a group of people who adhere to a particular faith, then extremists would be people who are outside the norms of their faith.

Rather than asking what people here think of extremists, I would like to ask my Muslim brothers and sisters if they view those who participate in car bombings of marketplaces in Baghdad, suicide bombings of buses in Israel, flying of airplanes into buildings in New York, or kidnapping of journalists in Pakistan as living within the norms and ethical values of Islam?
Terrorism is terrorism. It has no religious affiliation it is a self centered goal. I do not know the motivation of those people you are referring to, however, I can not think of any plausable way they could have been done as an Islamic teaching.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-09-2007, 12:06 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Terrorism is terrorism. It has no religious affiliation it is a self centered goal. I do not know the motivation of those people you are referring to, however, I can not think of any plausable way they could have been done as an Islamic teaching.
Thank-you for such a clear and forthright answer. I would be interested in hearing other answers, especially from those who perhaps live in predominantly Muslim countries.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
02-10-2007, 09:07 PM
Originally Posted by Akil
Piety means nothing if you’re a butcher. That’s why it matters. Who cares if you pray five times a day if you are an international terrorist wanted by half a dozen countries?
Not meaning to continue a disturbing dialogue, and maybe I'm being too simplistic in my definitions, but it's all very confusing. For instance:

All soldiers follow orders and all soldiers kill.

No soldier is neat and tidy in their kills. All soldiers have created gruesome deaths.

Most of our soldiers pray. All Muslim soldiers pray. Both are still soldiers.

All soldiers on active duty have enemies and are 'wanted' by them.

Our side wipe out civilians. Our enemies wipe out civilians.

We wiped out a wedding party during the Shock and Awe campaign. Our enemies wiped out a wedding party in Amman, Jordon.

I could go on, but you get the idea? The never-ending 'back and forth' of all this and the trading of insults and accusations is making me quite dizzy. From my view, they're all doing the same thing. Just for different reasons.

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Ubaidah
02-10-2007, 09:20 PM
The term itself irks me to no end ("extremists"), only because many people see a muslim pray and are not familiar with out practices and the first thing that pops into their head is, extremist.

But as to your question, those who kill in the name of Allah unjustly are terrible human beings and as far from being true muslims as you can get. Are they cursed or blessed? Well that's for Allah to decide.
Reply

alidagreat
02-11-2007, 08:37 AM
Islam is not a extreme religion. The people who kill and murder innocent people and justify it by saying that is Jihad or God's Will are people who are being heavily influenced by the devil. Satan told Adam "eat from this tree and you will be a king" Satan also told Adam "God said it was ok"

The same concept applies here. The devil is influencing the people who are doing these things and making them believe this is what Allah wants them to do and that they will be rewarded for it. If only these people would understand the fundamental basics of the religion and follow Prophet Muhammads teachings.

Islam promotes peace and denounces killing. Islam only gives you the right to fight if you are being oppressed from belief and retaliation. Most importantly...all people who commit suicide are promised the hellfire.

These extremists who neglect these fundamental principles will pay for what they do. They will be punished for their actions and for not following all the teachings of Islam. They are still Muslims but they are sinning grievous sins for which they will only have Allah to answer to.

Not a matter of cursed or not cursed...
Reply

islamway
02-11-2007, 09:33 AM
i will give you a good example i hope you know sufi's and sufisim came not in the time of prophet mohammed(peace be upon him).SUFISM started in iraq in basra.

ok these people belong to extremely diff sect in islam.Now for them jihad means fighting in the cause for Allah without any boundaries.For them jihad is like just going and fighting and taking revenge not seeing wether the innocent people get killed or not and even ignoring children and just killing them too so what they are extremist.doing things without knowledge of islam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

now according to the true muslim who follows the path of sunnah(teachings of prophet muhammed peace be upon him) and salafi meaning (the right path or the path of the sahabas)which is till today from the time of prophet mohammed(peace be upon him).prophet mohammed(peace be upon him)said jihad means a struggle to fight in the cause of Allah but with restrictions .I WILL EXPLAIN YOU IN SHORT.

1.)we are not supposed to fight unless OR until the "enemy" starts the fight.
2.)As we are fighting we are not suppose to kill innocent children,old people and women and men who have nothing to do with war.
3.)If the enemy has surrendered we are not suppose to kill him instead we have to keep him in jail .
4.)When the enemy is in jail we have no right to torture him or punish him or give him pain instead we have to teach him islam give him classes even if he doesn't like to know about islam, we are not forced to teach him islam its up to to his wish.
5.)If the enemy is litrate then we can give him the right to teach others and make them litrate ,still is his choice wether to give others litracy to others or not, remember islam doesnot force.
6.)We have to give the enemy the same clothes as we wear and also we have to give the enemy the same food and water we eat,we should not make any differences .
7.)We should give the enemy the certain amount of money to buy himself what ever he wants but in the boundaries of our country only.
8.)We should finally then release the enemy when the time of his trial is over and free him back to his country safely or if he wishes to stay back in our country by his wish or by the fear that his own country people will kill him for surrendering,remeber islam doesnot force its still the wish of the enemy even if he dint accept islam.

Brother the religion where there is no peace that is not the real religion.The people who are living in extremes are lacking knowledge of islam or they are from diff sects .

Islam the word it self means peace.

Ibn al-Qayyim (Rahimahullaah) said, "The jihaad with decisive proofs [from the Book and the Sunnah] and the tongue takes precedence over the jihaad with the sword and the spear." [Al-Jawaab us-Saheeh of Ibn Taymiyyah (1/237)].

Nasr bin Zakariyaa (Rahimahullaah) said, I heard Muhammad bin Yahyaa adh-Dhuhlee saying, I heard Yahyaa bin Yahyaa saying, "Defence of the Sunnah is more superior than Jihaad in the path of Allaah." So I said, "A man spends his wealth, tires his body and strives (in jihaad), so is this one (still) better than him? He said, "Yes, by many times!" [Dhammu ul-Kalaam of al-Harawi].

Ibn Hazam (Rahimahullaah) said: There is nothing more harmful to the branches of knowledge and its people than those who enter themselves into it and they are not from its people. They are ignorant and yet they think they have knowledge, they cause corruption whilst thinking they are correcting the affairs.[at Ta'aalam wa Atharuhu 'alal Fikr wal Kitaab pg 7]

Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimahullaah) said: Indeed the people of Truth and the Sunnah do not follow anyone [unconditionally] except the messenger of Allaah , the one who does not speak from his desires - it is only revelation revealed to him

Islaam is not a religion of arms and swords! When Allaah Almighty revealed the Noble Qur'ân to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, and Muhammad became the Messenger of GOD Almighty, Muhammad had to spread Islaam to 365 Pagan Arab Tribes. These tribes showed so much hostility toward the Muslims and Islaam, and have imposed so many battles against the Muslims. For instance, when our Prophet peace be upon him sent his messenger to "Kisrah", the Emperor of Persia, introducing Islaam to him, Kisrah ordered for the Muslims' Messenger to be executed!.Back then, like today, this was considered a coward act. It was the Persians who showed the hostility toward the Muslims and declared the many battles against Islaam.The Christian Romans weren't any better. For instance, in one of their many battles against the Muslims is when they saw the threat to their religion in the Middle East, the King "Herucl", sent out an army of 100,000 men and ordered them to go to "Madina" in what we call today Saudi Arabia to destroy Islaam once and for all.

The Muslims were not stable yet at that time, and they only sent out an army of 3,000 men at that time to drive the Christian Romans away from Madina. The battle was named "The battle of Mo'ta" and it took place in Mo'ta, Jordan today.

The Muslims' plan was to meet the Christian Romans far away from Madina, and to have them stray away from Madina. The army of 3,000 men was successful enough to fight the Christian Romans for few days and then to pull away from the battle and headed South of Jordan. The Romans strayed away from Madina and the small army of the Muslims was able to run away through the mountains. More than half of the 3,000 Muslims however were killed in this operation.

The point is that Islaam didn't spread by sword with much choice. The wars were imposed upon the Muslims. The Muslims didn't ask for those wars.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-12-2007, 12:04 AM
Originally Posted by islamway
now according to the true muslim who follows the path of sunnah(teachings of prophet muhammed peace be upon him) and salafi meaning (the right path or the path of the sahabas)which is till today from the time of prophet mohammed(peace be upon him).prophet mohammed(peace be upon him)said jihad means a struggle to fight in the cause of Allah but with restrictions .I WILL EXPLAIN YOU IN SHORT.

1.)we are not supposed to fight unless OR until the "enemy" starts the fight.
2.)As we are fighting we are not suppose to kill innocent children,old people and women and men who have nothing to do with war.
3.)If the enemy has surrendered we are not suppose to kill him instead we have to keep him in jail .
4.)When the enemy is in jail we have no right to torture him or punish him or give him pain instead we have to teach him islam give him classes even if he doesn't like to know about islam, we are not forced to teach him islam its up to to his wish.
5.)If the enemy is litrate then we can give him the right to teach others and make them litrate ,still is his choice wether to give others litracy to others or not, remember islam doesnot force.
6.)We have to give the enemy the same clothes as we wear and also we have to give the enemy the same food and water we eat,we should not make any differences .
7.)We should give the enemy the certain amount of money to buy himself what ever he wants but in the boundaries of our country only.
8.)We should finally then release the enemy when the time of his trial is over and free him back to his country safely or if he wishes to stay back in our country by his wish or by the fear that his own country people will kill him for surrendering,remeber islam doesnot force its still the wish of the enemy even if he dint accept islam.
Permit me to go off topic for a moment please, I thought of something while reading this most excellent post:

While I think these 8 points are indeed quite reasonable, I wonder how a Muslim would feel if someone was to treat him by them. Here is what I mean. Whether I like it or not (and I don't) the USA has a number of people of Muslim faith imprisoned at Guantanamo in Cuba. Aside from the point that the USA is guilty with regard to point #1 in Iraq, it has basically kept the rest of the points, and has even gone beyond some of these. The Muslims imprisoned there have not been given the food eaten by the typical American, but halal food. They have actually been provided with Muslim chaplains, and no effort has been made to convert them to Christianity. And still there are complaints regarding their treatment. Should the USA instead have them dress in American style dress, serve them American style food (including ham for Easter), and teach them about Christianity?
Reply

IzakHalevas
02-12-2007, 03:58 AM
Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe
We were sitting on one of the walls over-looking the tomb of Ezra. Azrael asked me why this place was holding up my progress (writing). I said: It's because of Zarqawi. I hopped down from the wall and walked toward the structure. If he finds out about this place... what if he blows it up?

Azrael hopped down from the wall and came to my side. He said: Well, then the sun will shine upon the land again. Maybe some flowers will grow there instead. Then he moved closer to me and said: I am not there Sheila. He whispered in my ear while pointing to my heart and said: I am right here.

OK. I suppose it makes sense...

Ninth Scribe
Wait... what!?! :uuh: Who is Azrael? :muddlehea Are you speaking to the "angel of death" according to Islam? :eek: :eek: :eek: And he talks to you?
Reply

Sabbir_1
02-12-2007, 11:19 AM
Islam extremists,,are they blessed Muslims or cursed Muslims? I mean the ones that take the Quran literally. The ones who believe they have done well in Allahs eyes by destroying a so called idol or a system that wars against theirs.

What do you believe?
There Muslims....
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
02-12-2007, 11:46 AM
Originally Posted by D.Y.R#7XTRUST
. The ones who believe they have done well in Allahs eyes
i doubt theres a single muslim out there who doesnt wish for this.

by destroying a so called idol or a system that wars against theirs.
an act such as this is meritorious, surely!
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
02-14-2007, 06:06 PM
Originally Posted by IzakHalevas
Wait... what!?! :uuh: Who is Azrael? :muddlehea Are you speaking to the "angel of death" according to Islam? :eek: :eek: :eek: And he talks to you?
The... clears throat... Angel of Death? Are you really that much of a sucker for gossip and inuendo? The one who holds this name is your faithful scribe. It's a very long story and I'm not allowed to explain all the various components that were responsible for mis-aligning the name and reputation, but as soon as there is a council to hear the issue - this one is going right to the top of the table! Grounds? Bearing false witness against another is a major sin!

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
02-14-2007, 06:11 PM
Originally Posted by khalil27
They're Muslims....
Words of Isa - he who is free from the sin may cast the first stone. The U.S. has commited identical acts and I cannot judge against one without judging against them both. Sorry.

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-10-2010, 12:30 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-10-2010, 01:58 AM
  3. Replies: 60
    Last Post: 02-17-2009, 01:55 AM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-19-2007, 05:20 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-30-2005, 01:34 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!