an arab woman has the guts to speak out, what many other people think in silence. May she find some open ears.
The message I like most is 'Accept other for their different faith' .
So far, peace to all
Media Tags are no longer supported
Im Always Right,Its Like,When Im Right,Im Right,And When Im Wrong,I Could've Been Right,So Im Still Right,'Cause I Could've Been Wrong!
LOL!!! This has been posted a few times before... how pathetic!!! And what, just because she's an Arab it adds alot of credibility does it? If you think her video's good, then you should post the response given to her by that Egyptian man.
This thread = Waste of space. You're late guyabano, realll late...
she didnt speak the truth she spoke junk and its highly amusing that memritv posted what she said but didnt post the sheikh blasting her and replying to her afterwards. :rolleyes:
Media Tags are no longer supported
Media Tags are no longer supported
we dont need her we dont need her suppoty
Our Lord! Verily, we have heard the call of one calling to Faith: 'Believe in your Lord,' and we have believed.
Our Lord! Forgive us our sins and expiate from us our evil deeds, and make us die (in the state of righteousness) along with Al-Abrar
now this is one man speaking the truth and stating the facts
Our Lord! Verily, we have heard the call of one calling to Faith: 'Believe in your Lord,' and we have believed.
Our Lord! Forgive us our sins and expiate from us our evil deeds, and make us die (in the state of righteousness) along with Al-Abrar
she didnt speak the truth she spoke junk and its highly amusing that memritv posted what she said but didnt post the sheikh blasting her and replying to her afterwards. :rolleyes:
yup! i think this guy whooped her big time! poor lady must have thought she was speaking to in her mind ' a backward muslim that doesnt know much'' well she got kaned in that argument, masha'allah the brother tore her argument and understanding to pieces, i dont think you can do that to the truth? so clearly she must have been speaking falsehood, yeh its obvious she was!
I could make a youtube video describing Islam and the way it treats women. I'm Arab, I'm a woman (well, girl/young woman/you know what I mean).
Would you then, I wonder, make a thread about it titled "Arab woman dares to speak truth!!!!!"?
I doubt it.
Isn't it odd that you attack guyabano by stating "You mean the "truth" you agree with" and turn around to do the identical dance on the other side of the fence. laying:
she didnt speak the truth she spoke junk and its highly amusing that memritv posted what she said but didnt post the sheikh blasting her and replying to her afterwards. :rolleyes:
we dont need her we dont need her suppoty
The fact that some, well many disagree with her, does not change what she has experienced nor does it alter "Her Truth".
My question is:
Did Muhammed say: “I have been ordered by Allah to fight and kill all people (non-Muslims) until they say, “No God except Allah” (as this lady is stating)???
Does the Qu'ran say so?
And if so, in which context???
I hope people here realise how very worrying statements like this are, especially in this forum, where others are so very keen to emphasize the peacefulness of Islam ...
It doesn't seem to add up!
Can somebody help me to understand?
Peace
Peace glo
Here I stand.
I can do no other.
May God help me.
Amen.
Come, let us worship and bow down •
and kneel before the Lord our Maker
[Psalm 95]
Hi glo,
no that is not in the Quran but part of a hadith
Abdullah bin Omar narrated that the messenger of Allah, sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam, said:
"I have been ordered to fight against people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah and until they perform the prayers and pay the zakat, and if they do so they will have gained protection from me for their lives and property, unless [they do acts that are punishable] in accordance with Islam, and their reckoning will be with Allah the Almighty."
Bukhari and Muslim
It is impossible to interpret that hadith to mean all people as this understanding clearly contradicts numerous verses in the Qur'an including, "there is no compulsion in religion." The hadith apparently refers to the Makkan chiefs who broke the treaty of Hudaybiya then fled after the opening of Makkah and conspired with others to initiate the battle of Hunain. When they were defeated they fled again. Such people were guilty of what we call today "war crimes" and murder of innocent people. While they deserve to be fought against they were given a magnanimous option that if they willingly wish to accept Islam that their previous transgression or crimes will be forgiven and their life and property will be safeguarded. In any case, it is an option, not force, it is a positive and constructive option to reconcile their hearts and assure them if they accept Islam willingly that they will not be punished for their previous atrocities
Another aspect that confirms this understanding is that the use of the term "hatta" in the hadith does not necessarily mean that it is a condition for them to be safe and it could mean in this broad textual context that the reason for Muslims being permitted to fight against aggression or oppression is to safeguard their religious freedom and those of others. So the ultimate objective of averting war may be realized more effectively if the religious enmity on the part the enemy is removed and the most effective way of removing it will occur if they see the light and open their hearts to the truth. http://www.islamonline.net/livedialo...GuestID=ls0mM5
looking at the life of Muhammed is essential. to pick and choose a hadith and conclude is dangerous and one must always look at the context in which a thing was said/done
Our Lord! Verily, we have heard the call of one calling to Faith: 'Believe in your Lord,' and we have believed.
Our Lord! Forgive us our sins and expiate from us our evil deeds, and make us die (in the state of righteousness) along with Al-Abrar
If this is what passes for serious discourse in some parts of the world, we're all in trouble. There are clear faults on both sides.
To start with, watching the female psychologist, I felt her analysis of the current situation was somewhat simplistic ("barbarism and rationality" etc.), but there was some truth in her later assertions and she did actually put forward a reasoned argument. It wasn't entirely convincing in all respects, and the tendency to broad strokes never disappeared entirely, but much of her speech was specifically designed to be rhetorical and attention-seeking. It's also worth noting her considerable bravery in talking the way she did, given the inevitable reaction she would face.
The two replies from two different chaps were on an altogether different level. Both came across like ranting maniacs, quite frankly, neither ever addressing the specific points of the original argument and going off on irrelevant tangents that went nowhere.
The first speaker began with a totally self-defeating argument about the great Islamic philosopher Ibn-Rushd. It was self-defeating in not one, but two ways. First, he was obviously promoting Ibn-Rushd as some kind of ideal Islamic philosopher. In fact, he held some very heterodox views, and is regarded by many as the founder of Western secularism as a result of his epistemological separation of reason and religion, which provides the intellectual foundations for the separation of church and state.
Second, the chap making the first response claims that the Pope issued a ban on the works of Ibn-Rushd, and included hatred of him as a part of Catholic worship. I can find no evidence for this, or even that Ibn-Rushd was placed on the Catholic Index of Prohibited Books (a perfectly ludicrous document if ever there was one, but that's another story), although he might well have been, as just about every other valuable intellectual work was. However, what I'm getting to is that the same speaker later makes the point that "Christianity cannot be judged by the actions of Christians", thus demolishing his own argument.
Later, we hear from the second responder, who makes absolutely no attempt to address the arguments put before him, beginning with a laughable politician's tactic: " Instead of asking about.... she should have asked about..." He then goes into a long list of Muslim complaints against the West which does nothing to answer the charges. I am ready to admit that almost everything he says is true, but it is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. He should be trying to prove that Islam is not a backward religion, as the lady argues, and there are many examples he could have used, but he ignores the issue and charges full steam ahead into debating oblivion.
I'm sorry, folks, but these two chaps got completely owned in this discussion. They are unfortunately typical of the kind of Muslim "intellectual" that we see on our screens day after day. There are far more intelligent Muslims out there who could have done their religion a real service by addressing this lady properly (Ansar Al-'Adl, where the heck are you?); these two will just amplify the negative and hugely damaging backlash that Islam continues to face.
she issued so many incorrect statements to support her points, and overall showed a very narrow understanding of the issue at hand as well. I wonder if this kind of debate helps anyone. The only real solution is that the american government stops its hypocrisy over palestine,and stop its endless nosing and supporting of despots, and that the general arab and muslim worlds to stop the neo-fanatics and neo-seculars from doing more harm than hs been done .
Otherwise it will be business as usual with linguistic cleverness masquerading as solutions that never get implemented anyway.
she issued so many incorrect statements to support her points, and overall showed a very narrow understanding of the issue at hand as well. I wonder if this kind of debate helps anyone. The only real solution is that the american government stops its hypocrisy over palestine,and stop its endless nosing and supporting of despots, and that the general arab and muslim worlds to stop the neo-fanatics and neo-seculars from doing more harm than hs been done .
Otherwise it will be business as usual with linguistic cleverness masquerading as solutions that never get implemented anyway.
What in the world does her attitude have to do with the US providing aid to Israel? Of course some one with such great knowledge must know that the US also provides aid to Palestine.
Boy talk about hypocrisy.
That is such a far reach you must be able to pick apples from the top of the tree.
Yaa Allah let that lady burn in jahanum. Ameen. I want her to go straight to Hell. Not even wait to be judged. Just straight down to Hell. Everyone make duah for this please.
And the title for this post called it the TRUTH. What truth. Guyabano shud go to hell to. Inshaalah
Yaa Allah let that lady burn in jahanum. Ameen. I want her to go straight to Hell. Not even wait to be judged. Just straight down to Hell. Everyone make duah for this please.
And the title for this post called it the TRUTH. What truth. Guyabano shud go to hell to. Inshaalah
Do you hate everyone who doesn't believe what you believe?
You should start hoping god does not judge you based on your hate.
She was saying hateful stuff. Theres a way to express ur beliefs rite. She did it outta hate so ima hate her too. See man, theres a difference b/w someone that talks about not believing in Islam in a way that is respectful and polite and kind. This lady was talking out of hatred. So I hate her.
What in the world does her attitude have to do with the US providing aid to Israel? Of course some one with such great knowledge must know that the US also provides aid to Palestine.
Boy talk about hypocrisy.
That is such a far reach you must be able to pick apples from the top of the tree.
that's wrong... how you support aid to the country that you killed their children and man... that's just camouflage...
She was saying hateful stuff. Theres a way to express ur beliefs rite. She did it outta hate so ima hate her too. See man, theres a difference b/w someone that talks about not believing in Islam in a way that is respectful and polite and kind. This lady was talking out of hatred. So I hate her.
She says hateful stuff and that justifies you wishing the most horrible thing that can ever happen on her.
What you express is total intolerance.
I bet you like freedom of speech only if people agree with you.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
laying:
is essential. to pick and choose a hadith and conclude is dangerous and one must always look at the context in which a thing was said/done
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks