Islam extremists,,are they blessed Muslims or cursed Muslims?

format_quote 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.

format_quote 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.

format_quote 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

format_quote 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?

format_quote 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.

format_quote 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.

format_quote 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.

^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.

format_quote 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.

format_quote 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

format_quote 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.

format_quote 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

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.

format_quote 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