How long does it take for Islamqa to answer a question?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TDWT
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 48
  • Views Views 20K
TDWT said:
That's not really any better. You're still generalizing. It's literally like someone saying 'muslims are generally terrorist". That's bad right? You're doing the same thing. It's prejudice
Click to expand...

We would ask this person to define "terrorist", and then take it from there. You see, these days, every person has their own definition of what "terrorist" means. For some "Islamophobes", every Arab man is a terrorist. Any man with a beard is a terrorist. Any man who isn't a feminist is a terrorist. Any man who isn't a pacifist is a terrorist. Any man who believes in fighting is a terrorist. The list goes on. One person's "terrorist" is another person's "hero". It's subjective. Back in the old days in South Africa, when the apartheid was at its worst, and the African people rose up against apartheid and Mandela started a military group (yes, even Mandela wasn't a "pacifist") called "Umkhonto we Sizwe" (The Spear of the Nation), the armed wing of the ANC (African National Congress), the apartheid regime labelled him as a "terrorist" and the organisation as a "terrorist organisation". Guess who else labelled it as a "terrorist organisation"? None other than "God damned America" (to use Jeremiah Wright's favourite curse), once again. America labelled it as a "terrorist group" and did all they could to have it banned. America has always been sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. All the years. It's time someone cuts that nose off.

Anyway, they praise him now and make a big deal about him, but back then he was SA's number one "Terrorist". Old Mandela.

So, if a person says to you, "Muslims are generally terrorists", ask him to define terrorism. If by terrorist he means someone who believes in Jihaad, then yes, I am 100% a terrorist. In that case, it is compulsory to be a terrorist.

So let him define it.
 
Last edited:
By the way, on the topic of "violence and pacifism", take a look at what Mandela had to say about it:

Mandela said, in his famous speech, "I Am Prepared to Die":

"At the beginning of June 1961, after a long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I, and some colleagues, came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force.

This conclusion was not easily arrived at. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe. We did so not because we desired such a course, but solely because the government had left us with no other choice. In the Manifesto of Umkhonto published on 16 December 1961, which is exhibit AD, we said:

The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices – submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in our power in defence of our people, our future, and our freedom.

Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalise and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or take over the Government. We chose to defy the law."

So, even Mandela knew that pacifism doesn't work. The apartheid regime cared nothing for anyone's "pacifism". Pacifism encouraged them to become more racialistic and oppress people even more. The more of a "pacifist" you are, the more easy a target you are. The more of a "victim" you are. One of the "oppressed majority". So in life, you have only two choices, and there is no third: You can choose to be a victim, or you can choose to be a fighter.

The choice is yours.
 
Last edited:
Huzaifah ibn Adam said:
We would ask this person to define "terrorist", and then take it from there. You see, these days, every person has their own definition of what "terrorist" means. For some "Islamophobes", every Arab man is a terrorist. Any man with a beard is a terrorist. Any man who isn't a feminist is a terrorist. Any man who isn't a pacifist is a terrorist. Any man who believes in fighting is a terrorist. The list goes on. One person's "terrorist" is another person's "hero". It's subjective. Back in the old days in South Africa, when the apartheid was at its worst, and the African people rose up against apartheid and Mandela started a military group (yes, even Mandela wasn't a "pacifist") called "Umkhonto we Sizwe" (The Spear of the Nation), the armed wing of the ANC (African National Congress), the apartheid regime labelled him as a "terrorist" and the organisation as a "terrorist organisation". Guess who else labelled it as a "terrorist organisation"? None other than "God damned America" (to use Jeremiah Wright's favourite curse), once again. America labelled it as a "terrorist group" and did all they could to have it banned. America has always been sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. All the years. It's time someone cuts that nose off.

Anyway, they praise him now and make a big deal about him, but back then he was SA's number one "Terrorist". Old Mandela.

So, if a person says to you, "Muslims are generally terrorists", ask him to define terrorism. If by terrorist he means someone who believes in Jihaad, then yes, I am 100% a terrorist. In that case, it is compulsory to be a terrorist.

So let him define it.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with what we were talking about? I meant like the likes of ISIS, who are suicide bombers and are attacking innocents. Or someone said, 'muslims are generally rapist'. That is wrong in both senses and generalizing.
 
Once again: al-Munajjid said about the Jews only that which the Qur'aan and Sunnah has said about them. He has provided his proof in his article. You have not broken any of his evidences. You have not disproved what he said. You have only said that you don't like it. But, when it comes to the truth, then it doesn't matter about who likes it and who doesn't like it. The only thing that matters is whether it's the truth or not.
 
Huzaifah ibn Adam said:
Once again: al-Munajjid said about the Jews only that which the Qur'aan and Sunnah has said about them. He has provided his proof in his article. You have not broken any of his evidences. You have not disproved what he said. You have only said that you don't like it. But, when it comes to the truth, then it doesn't matter about who likes it and who doesn't like it. The only thing that matters is whether it's the truth or not.
Click to expand...

Let's consider this. A lot of jews, the ones in Israel, aren't really practicing and more, culturally jewish. The ones who have been protesting it are orthodox jews, who are the followers of the religion. Second, aside from that, you know the rohingya are being persecuted by buddhist, so I don't know why you're not judging all buddhist.
Like what that guy in the article said, quran doesn't generalize jews, like you and munajidd says, it distinguishes between good ones and bad ones, verses of condemnation are talking about the bad ones obviously.
 
i take dispute with the one mans freedom fighter is anothers terrorist..

because it implies a transgression of bounds when at odds..

its kind of like the opposite of "collateral damage"

...this is why all I have are comic book references..

and fictional head in the clouds approaches to life.

because we all die in the end.


if you send me to dig graves i will protest.


one mans hero is anothers villain.

..


i learned to box and now they are cleverer. o_0

what happens if i become cleverer?

meh.. makes no sense to me.

misplaced confidence and false hope.. is all the same to me.

whatevers waiting in the wings can part the sea.


..itself?
 
Last edited:
I think it's safe to say that islamqa is a conservative site with conservative views. If it's something you can't digest then try a less conservative site like islamweb.com.
It's like saying you can't do the niqaab then do the hijab. Not everyone is at the same level of commitment.

As for the driving issue, that is just a cultural suadi issue. If a woman can travel locally then she can drive locally too. It's prohibited in saudi because the men there do not trust their women. And we know this because we have seen what they do when the come aboard. If saudi gave isamic education to its citizens rather then impose dos and don'ts list on its citizens then they wouldn't have these issues. What they do there is no different than a child asking why do i have to wear hijab or pray and the parents says "because i said so".
 
anatolian said:
Actually I don't have a stance regarding this website. I saw it in this forum for the first time and checked it for a few times as people refering to it frequently here. However, all the answers I checked had more restrictive rulings compared to many other sources. Now I have learnt they are Salafi. This didn't surprise me.

You actually scared people by calling them to fear Allah for criticising this website. This is wrong. No mattter what our differing points are, as long as people are serious, we have no right to use the name of Allah to scare people for our agenda. Just bring forth your own agenda and let people see the right and wrong. Don't "use" Allah..
Click to expand...

You misunderstand me.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top