Islam Q&A & Discussion

Protectionist said:

Lets give you the benefit of the doubt + we'll also say they are not stealth jihadists either. But if all this is so, or they are not sympathizers of all this jihad, why then don't they speak out against it ?

Click to expand...

What do you call this?

As such, the true SCHOLARS and masses amongst the Muslims stand strongly against terrorism, and I could link you to hundreds of rulings by prominent scholars who oppose such acts. It is only self-proclaimed scholars (who have no actual Islamic credentials), such as Osama Bin Laden, that claim such attacks are permissible.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a Muslim speaking out against terrorism to me.

Panache said:

What do you call this?



Sounds like a Muslim speaking out against terrorism to me.

Click to expand...

How about including who said that, and when ?

Irregardless, the quote only applies to "terrorism" (not the hundreds of examples of stealth jihad), and even the criticism of terrorism by Muslims is suspect, when you consider that Muslims have different definitions for words that Westerners have.

Words like "terrorism", "innocent lives", and "civilians" are words not uniformly defined in the Islamic world. Example : Anjem Choudhury from a British jihad group said recently that the victims of the 2005 bombings in London were not "innocent" because they were not Muslims. Specifically, he said : " When we say innocent people, we mean Muslims. "

With the word "civilians, the Tunisian jihadist Rashid al-Ghannushi said : "There are no civilians in Israel. The population - males, females, and children - are the army reserve soldiers, and thus can be killed."

And this statement was spoken on Al Jazeera, by (scholar) Dr. Hani Al-Siba'i (Director of the Al- Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies), in London : "The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic religious law."

So when Muslims talk about terrorism, are they meaning the same thing that Westerners would mean when they speak the word ? Often, they are not.

In addition, getting Muslims to condemn specific terrorist organizations is almost impossible. For years, Imam Rauf of the Ground Zero Mosque wouldn't condemn Hamas. When an LA Times reporter asked a CAIR person, Munira Syeda to condemn Hamas or Hezbollah as terrorist groups, she said : " I don't understand what the relevance is". The relevance is her reluctance to condemn terrorists.

mbig said:

The Biggest Fault/JOKE by FAR is the 'terrorist' attacks are limited to the USA which is only 2% Muslim.
There are attacks in the Name of Islam EVERY Day worldwide.

Islam: Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time



And What percent is that of total terrorist attacks? 90, 95, 98?
Using just the USA is indeed 'loon.'

Click to expand...

Since 9/11, Islamic terrorists have committed 16,481 deadly terrorist attacks, worldwide.

Islam: Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time

CaptainCourtesy said:

Go into the Religion Forum and read what some of the militant atheists say. You'll change your mind REAL quick on this.

Click to expand...

digsbe said:

The volume of anti religious hate here is typically aimed at Christianity and social conservatives. Most of the threads here deal with Christianity and Christians get bashed more often and more frequently. Not to say those who bash Muslims aren't jerks nor do I want to vindicate their behavior. But Christianity is heavily attacked by militant atheists. I'm not ignoring the fact that Muslims don't get bashed though either, as I've seen it myself.

Click to expand...

Do you guys realize which minority in this country is the most HATED minority?

[video]http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/[/video]

Protectionist said:

How about including who said that, and when ?

Click to expand...

Musa, the original poster of this very thread, post number 17

Panache said:

Musa, the original poster of this very thread, post number 17

Click to expand...

Yeah, whatever happened to that guy?

ElijahGalt said:

Do you guys realize which minority in this country is the most HATED minority?

[video]http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/[/video]

Click to expand...

Without looking at your link (because I don't have time right now), I think Jews are still targets of "hate" crimes more than any other group.

X Factor said:

Without looking at your link (because I don't have time right now), I think Jews are still targets of "hate" crimes more than any other group.

Click to expand...

I recently heard that also. I think though, if most people knew what was going on behind the scenes of Islamization, that is a statistic that might rapidly change (not that I think anyone should be a victim of any crime).

X Factor said:

Yeah, whatever happened to that guy?

Click to expand...

He started finding out that he did not know, how much, he did not know. That's what happens when people listen to only one side of an issue. In his case, the wrong one - which can easily happen in the university systems (and even lower grades) we have today.

Protectionist said:

Lets give you the benefit of the doubt + we'll also say they are not stealth jihadists either. But if all this is so, or they are not sympathizers of all this jihad, why then don't they speak out against it ?
Why no words of denumciation of the hateful, genocidal, misogynist words of the Koran, or the stealth jihad of the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, Islamic Society of North America, and some of the organizations listed in my 12:49 post today ?????????????
Makes one wonder what will be the road all the so-called non-jihadist Muslims will take if/whenever the jihadists start making full-scale war against the US government, to Islamize it.

Click to expand...

Muslims have spoken out... even after 9/11 many spoke out, and in Oregon where the boy tried to be a Christmas bomber, his own Muslim father reporter him. The local Mosques are standing with his father and passing out fliers in the local community.. so why you sit there and say, we aren't doing enough, you don't seem to be taking notice we are being vocal about condemning terrorism.

X Factor said:

Yeah, whatever happened to that guy?

Click to expand...

I'm here, sorry for not writing much. I'm in the midst of a storm with school work. Finals time. God willing, I'll make a post tonight. Sorry.

The Baron said:

Thanks for the list. It’s encouraging. At least there seems to be recognition by some in the Muslim community that they have a “P.R.” problem.

Click to expand...

Indeed, but to be honest, I think Muslims are growing tired of constantly reiterating the same points that we've been reiterating since 2001. Nine years of Mosques doing open houses to attempt transparency, nine years of every Islamic convention topic revolving around 'peace', nine years of community service attempts, nine years of interfaith... and in the end, hatred against Muslims is on the rise and the claims are still continually made that there are not enough Muslim voices condemning terrorism. I was not Muslim before 9/11/01, but I watch some videos online, and see that the lecturers at conventions and Friday sermons once revolved around REAL topics that effected us everyday. Now its all about peace, and being kind to your neighbor, and presenting Islam how it ought to be presented. Granted, that is important. But does it need to dominate every single Muslim forum? The masses of us already know it, and those who do not, will probably not change. It's honestly a stumbling block to my real Islamic education. And 10 years of it - and you, as is the case for most, have not even heard our voices.

I wouldn’t argue the point with you, however, there is no denying that suicide bombings are closely linked with Islamic terrorists--especially in the West. The facts--whatever they may be--are almost irrelevant as the perception is the reality that Muslims in the West are forced to deal with. This same perception will further affect Muslims around the world as national policies will be crafted in response to these perceptions.

Click to expand...

If perception is reality, than America has a lot of explaining to do in the Muslim world... Wallahi (God is my witness), I will never forget my experiences in Palestine, and it will forever distort my perception of those (even in my own family) who fundraise and so fervently support Israel, just as the images of 9/11 will forever haunt your perception of Muslims. Hate is usually two ways brother, and the world is not made up of black and white. There are a lot of grey shades. I do not believe in 'the good guys' and 'the bad guys'. The world has a lot of deeply rooted issues, and most people fight for what they think is right. Oftentimes, what they think is right, is very far from the truth.

I don’t seem to be the only one who is confused by martyrdom as there seems to be an endless supply Muslims willing to martyr themselves. I’ve even seen news reports of suicide schools in Palestine and elsewhere.

Click to expand...

I would highly suggest you watch the documentary, "To Die In Jerusalem," about an Israel mother who wants to meet the mother of her daughter's female killer. There is a lot more to suicide bombing than you think. When there is so little to live for, it is often easier to await death. I think its a release, and they have justified it through making suicide bombing permissible in Islam, when in fact, most scholars agree that it is haram (unlawful). Fighting is one thing, and a person who dies in battle against oppressors is granted paradise. But knowingly throwing away your life is sinful, as the Qur'an very clearly prohibits suicide. This is not only my view, but the view of most of the most prominent shayookh, including the extremely conservative former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Shaykh Ibn Baaz.

So there’s no way to “define” legitimate credentials?

Click to expand...

There are different standards for what constitutes a scholar. In the most certain sense, it would be someone who has received Ijazah, meaning he has studied at the feet of a scholar, and has received a diploma face-to-face. It's not simple study. It takes a lot of real devotion. Today, there are a lot of Islamic schools, and when one graduates, it does not necessarily make him a scholar, but simply a student of knowledge. Because of a lack of scholars in the West, a lot of people go to non-scholarly sources for the sake of learning Islam. This is a major problem in my opinion, because we are losing what it means to be a scholar. But recently, the West is beginning to create its own scholars. It is a problem to look to other countries for scholars. It has never been like that in history. You are supposed to follow local scholars.

In Christianity, there is no real definition over what kind of credentials you must have to be considered “legitimate”, either, although we often talk of certain preachers being “called” by God.

Click to expand...

I think some sects of Christianity require that one goes to school before opening a church, no?

We do, however, scrutinize over how biblical passages are interpreted. There are essentially two methods of interpretation (called “hermeneutics”) that is utilized today. One type is the allegorical method and is used by the Catholic Church. Basically, this method says that there is a “hidden” meaning behind certain verses. The problem with this method is that you can never know which verses have hidden meaning or what these verses say.

Click to expand...

Gotcha, there is something similar in Judaism as well. I studied in an Orthodox Jewish school for most of my life :2razz: so everything is bound to relate back to Islam or Judaism for me haha.

The other form of hermeneutics that is utilized is called the Literal, Historical and Grammatical Method. It’s one method with three parts and basically says that there verses are to be interpreted by:

a) Literally: Passages that can be interpreted literally should be so interpreted. When the Bible says that Jesus died and was resurrected on the third day we believe this a literal truth.

b) Grammatically: We understand that the Bible is filled with poems and metaphors. When Jesus said He was a “vine”, we understand that He was speaking metaphorically and don’t for a moment believe that He was a literal “vine”.

c) Historically: We understand that some things are in the Bible because they actually happened. They are historical facts. When David killed Goliath, we don’t believe that there is some spiritual concept to be learned here. David simply killed a giant.
We use this method as this is the method that Christ used when interpreting the Scriptures and Christ is always our example.

Click to expand...

Any good books to read on this topic? I'm glad you believe in "c", because I can't stand when people take everything as a metaphor... though certainly there are deeper meanings to many things. In Islam there is something called "Uloom Al-Qur'an" (which I will discuss later, as it is relevant to a later point you have brought up). It means "Sciences of the Qur'an," and speaks about its compilation, history, context, interpretation, and so on. Is there anything like it in Christianity?

I don’t mean “person” as a flesh and blood being but a “person” in that he has a mind, and a will.

I would enjoy such a discussion and would be glad to join you in another thread, but since you brought it up…

Click to expand...

When finals are over, I will definitely work up something. I have read the New Testament, yet admittedly have not studied it deeply. I have, however, read very much into the Old Testament, so will have a few questions regarding that. I look forward to your responses I am enjoying how this is dialogue format, as opposed to a debate. Thank you, for helping to maintain that.

The Bible does say that we are not to tempt the Lord (Deuteronomy 6:16). But why would it say that unless we could tempt the Lord?

Understand that I am not saying that God can be tempted. Only that man can try to tempt God and, thus, the prohibition against it.

Jesus was taken to the desert to be tempted. But He was not tempted. In fact, He simply refers back to Deuteronomy 6:16 and tells Satan not to tempt Him (Matthew 4:7 & Luke 4:12).

And just for the sake of clarification, there is absolutely nothing that says that Christ was tempted. Only that He was taken to the desert to be tempted.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification. That makes sense.

And, yes, do start a thread. I would enjoy in tremendously.

Click to expand...

Will do. I know I keep saying it, but I only just began freaking out about finals, after realizing everyone else has already began and I am way behind!

There must be some difference of opinions between Muslims. In his book Who Is Allah in Islam, Abd-al-Masih stated that Allah was unknowable and anything that you may think about him is wrong.

Click to expand...

I think that you are perhaps misunderstanding what he means by "unknowable". This is approaching an issue called Aqeedah, and I would rather not enter it, because I am but a rather amateur student. I have began reading a book titled, "An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'aan," by a rather strict and orthodox teacher, Abu Amaar Yasir Qadhi. While I was reading this, I found that he addresses this issue, and decided to jot it down for you. I would say this is as far to the "we can't understand Allah" view that one would take. Others make efforts to understand Allah (swt), and these people are considered deviant by Yasir Qadhi. He states,

"Since Allah's attributes are unique, it is not possible for mankind to understand the exact nature of Allah's Names and Attributes, even though it is possible to understand the concept that any Name or Attribute refer to... so man has the characteristic of life, and Allah describes himself as having the characteristic of Life, but... they differ as much as man differs from the creator.​

Does that make sense? Essentially, God speaks of himself as "all-hearing." We too hear, but we can never fathom the idea of limitless hearing. God is not restricted by limitations, and we can never fathom that. We can, however, fathom the ideas. I think this would be as strict as one would go in saying, "We cannot understand God." Any stricter than this would be iffy waters. Who he is responding to, are those who have actually changed the attributes of God because they cannot understand the attributes described in Qur'an (such as God being able to speak, without a mouth and whatnot). They are called Ash'arees.

Click to expand...

In scanning over the names of Allah that you linked to, I couldn’t help but notice that nowhere is Allah called “love” or “loving”. I see this as a big difference between Christianity and Islam as the Bible clearly states that God is love.

Click to expand...

Interesting observation. However, I do think it is apart of the relationship with God, though it is not apart of his described attributes. For example, the Qur'an says:


This as well:

Supposedly the word "Hub" (love), is used on average in 1/15th of the verses. But it is an interesting observation. I can ask my teacher if it seems it is on topic at some point...

[/quote]I am a non-denominational, evangelical, Bible-believing, born-again Christian. In short…

…I’m one of “those people”.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

At least you know what you believe. I'm probably somewhere similar to you, in an Islamic comparison. Non-denomination, strict, Qur'an believing, convert Muslim. :lol:

I generally get along with religious people, regardless of their religion.

Whoa! Time Out! What?

Muslims don’t get free-speech? Why? And doesn’t that create something of a conflict for Muslim communities in America is one of ya’ll wants to practice those free-speech rights?

Click to expand...

Perhaps I wrote this unclear. First of all, Pakistanis, Moroccans, etc. are definitely not used to the same sort of free speech that is acceptable in European society. No one would criticize Muhammad (pbuh) with such crude remarks, as is the case in Western society. Here lies a major issue of integration. It is not that they oppose free speech, but they simply cannot fathom the idea of free speech without limits.

If you want the strict Islamic opinion, from my understanding, there is meant to be free speech, with limitations. These are necessary not only to protect the feelings of the masses, but the security of the minorities as well. It could be said that Islamic society was the first to establish free speech. To quite Ali (ra), the 4th Khalifah (successor) of Islam, friend, newphew, and son-in-law of the Prophet (pbuh),
Islam has created a stage for free speech. Furthermore, in the protection contracts between the Khalifah and non-Muslim citizens, it was often stated, "They may pray in their religious places and speak therein whatever they please, even if it is preaching kufr (disbelief)."

Political limitation of free-speech is a major problem in the Muslim world, and insha'Allah, I pray for that to change soon! It is truly insane how much you have to watch your speech in Palestine. They will arrest anyone in the West Bank who speaks good about Hamas or bad about Israel lol.

Help me out here ‘cause I don’t make the connection between Rushdie and the events surrounding his going into hiding and the verse you just shared.

Click to expand...

Long story short, you have to follow the laws of the land. We consider that a citizen living within a state has a covenant with that state, to obey its laws, so long as he is not restricted from the obligations of his religion.

According to Muhammad Hasan Al-Shaybani (who lived in the 8th century):

Immigrant Muslims?

Click to expand...

Muslims who had never heard such blasphemy and did not understand how to properly deal with it.

Okay, okay--I may be asking the question the wrong way. I’m forgetting that Islam defines certain political / governmental systems (or however you want to define it). I guess what I’m trying to figure out is Jizya a religious tax (punitive for being a non-believer) or is it a “government” tax?

Click to expand...

Ahh, I'm not sure I fully grasp the difference in the two. It is certainly a Government tax, to the extent that it is paid for the maintenance of the land, and there is to be pension for the non-Muslims when they reach old age. It is really just an economic transaction: pay taxes in return for military protection, communal autonomy, and religious freedom. Everyone at the time was paying taxes to someone. They didn't care much to switch who they were paying taxes to, so long as they were left alone. Overall, it is generally agreed upon by historians that the non-Muslims were not burdened by the tax. I wrote a Jewish History paper in high school, about how the Jizya was often positive for the community because it made them valuable. This prevented many Muslims from feeling the need to convert Jews, because their community was actually apart of the fabrics of the state.

If you are asking whether it was a "humiliation" tax, well, I'm not going to make one sweeping statement for 1400 years of history. One scholar said:

So that sounds quite tolerant and respectful, whereas there certainly were others who saw it as a "humiliation tax." I think this has been a debate throughout history, and probably had much more to do with the Muslim to Non-Muslim relations, than actual Islamic law. In reality, it is simply a contract between the protector and the protected.

Dixie!

Click to expand...

Is that in Utah? lol

I can’t imagine why. I have no idea who most of those people are.

Click to expand...

They are dictators and 'presidents' supported by the West.

Here’s what I find most interesting…

Click to expand...

I'm going to have to stop here and call it a night! Consider it one of those commercials that cuts in right at the climax...

:2wave:

Its been nice, thanks for the respectful discussion. I shall try to finish tomorrow. I pray that I have not misspoken anywhere. I know I write... A LOT! I just hate to be unclear. I'm a descriptive/detailed writer, I think. My apologies if its leading to a load of boredom haha.

SheWolf said:

Muslims have spoken out... even after 9/11 many spoke out, and in Oregon where the boy tried to be a Christmas bomber, his own Muslim father reporter him. The local Mosques are standing with his father and passing out fliers in the local community.. so why you sit there and say, we aren't doing enough, you don't seem to be taking notice we are being vocal about condemning terrorism.

Click to expand...

Interesting how you just changed the subject. Although I could talk about their lack of condemnation of terrorism, while Muslims all over the world support it, that wasn't what the subject was. I mentioned the hateful, genocidal, misogynist pages of the Koran and the hundreds of examples of Stealth Jihad, not terrorism.

So what about it ? The question still stands. Why no condemnation of CAIR, ISNA, the Muslim Brotherhood, and many other Stealth Jihad groups I mentioned in my 12:49 post yesterday ? Why no mention of textbooks propagandizing ideas whitewashing Islam's atrocities ? Why no condemnation of the Pentagon ouster of Major Stephen Coughlin, formerly their lone (and highly qualified) specialist on Islamic law, who correctly argued that the politically "correct" refusal to name the enemy was placing the US at a strategic disadvantage. Why no denunciation of the critics of Geert Wilders and his film, Fitna, which, similarly and truthfully, criticized the Koran and its terrorist links. Why no condemnation about the indictment of the Italian author Oriana Fallaci by the Italian govenment, just because she wrote a book (The Rage and the Pride)
in which she argued that Europe was being colonized by Muslims, and had to flee to New York to escape prosecution for exercising free (and truthful) speech.
This list could go into the hundreds, and many of the people and things are listed in my previous post (12:49 yesterday). I'm not hearing any comments about them. Why not ?

^I don't even get your 12:49 post. What are you getting at? You just listed a bunch of random names really... some of whom are actually personal friends and teachers of mine.

Musa said:

^I don't even get your 12:49 post. What are you getting at? You just listed a bunch of random names really... some of whom are actually personal friends and teachers of mine.

Click to expand...

I'm not "getting at" anything. I said my piece in that post, and I've already gotten at what i meant to say. My point was, and is, generally, Islamapologists listen obly to other Islamapologists, rarely have contact with protectionists like Steve Emerson, Stephen Coughlin, Brigitte Gabriel, Robert Spencer, P. David Gaubatz, Paul Sperry, Frank Gaffney - or read their books and writings.

Consequently, they are most often oblivious to the hundreds of examples of Stealth Jihad that are slowly subverting Europe, Canada, and the United States into Islamic states. In another forum, I listed these names and challenged Islamapologists who had been blabbing till the cows come home about how great Islam is and how all these subversions ought to be acceptable.

The highest grade any of them came up with was 5%, and that was probably looking it up on the internet. In a couple of cases, they knew about the person or thing listed, but didn't know the things I knew about them. I'm a little curious though about who, on my list, are friends of yours or former teachers. Care to divulge that ?

PS - the names I listed are not "random". They are all connected to Islamization. Do you know how ?

X Factor said:

Without looking at your link (because I don't have time right now), I think Jews are still targets of "hate" crimes more than any other group.

Click to expand...

I would disagree, but I don't have any statistics either way.

The link leads to a study indicating that ATHEISTS are the most hated minority. Though there are still some nutcases trying to do harm to Jews, the vast majority of Americans are incredibly curious and supportive of the Jewish religion (I'm a Jew by birth who is frankly sick and tired of all the attention I get).

First of all, discrimination/hate crime statistics are not very reliable - ESPECIALLY when talking about Muslims. The most discriminated group of Muslims are those whom appear, "fresh off the boat," and often are. They don't know how to use the system, and therefore, a lot of crimes against them go unreported. I personally have had my cars tires slashed and mirrors broken, though I cannot confirm it was a hate crime (but I was parked at the Mosque, and the same happened to several others). Here is a relevant article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/business/24muslim.html

And though I am swamped in work, and cannot write a decent post now, I figured this could offer some room for thought: Muslim Scholars—West’s Natural Allies in Fighting Scourge of Terrorism Muslim Scholars

I'm curious, Musa. What position of yours is advanced by denying that Jews are targeted for hate crimes more than other groups?

When did I say or imply that?

my experience is pretty much the same. most people I have had a chance to get to know are good people, regardless of religion. some are not, but this doesn't seem to be based on religion in any way.

I find often that people who come from more traditional societies - and therefore in my experience especially Muslims - are super hospitable and friendly - but its not a religious thing - you get the same among other more traditional people as well.

I do not like Khalid Yasin. I went to an event where he was speaking years ago, and I was shocked by what he said.

He was addressing women, and some of the comments he made were way out.

He was discouraging immigrant Muslim women from mixing with non Muslims ... apparently 25% of western women are lesbians and can't be trusted, therefore muslim women should never come to our houses. He also suggested that Muslim women should not get jobs with westerners, and if they did, they should shun social gatherings with colleagues.

many of the Muslim women present were embarrassed by this man, and said that he does not represent Islam.

I already knew he didn't. I have had plenty to do with Muslims - and while yes, there are some who might be termed "fundamentalist" (which is not the same thing as being a terrorist), most are not. I know Muslims who wear hijab during ramadan only, who don't wear it at all, who eat ham and bacon, who never pray (or maybe do at Ramadan), who don't fast, who wear skimpy clothes, who go clubbing and get drunk with their friends, who live with their (non Muslim) boyfriends, and parents who are more tolerant of this state of affairs than my mothers generation were in the 70's, even one or two gay Muslims .... and some who question whether there really is a God or not ...... I also know Muslims who are very devout, some for whom their identity as a Muslim is more important to them than anything else, some who proselytize at every opportunity, some who try to control their children (in the same way that the children of southern european families used to be controlled by family members back in the seventies) and so on.

in muslim countries especially I have met people who can't understand that I am an atheist, and their concern for me is quite touching. It seems far more from the heart than either Muslim or christian proselytizers here.

I don't think Yasin is a good example of a Muslim. he is a control freak.

X Factor said:

No, what I'll do is renounce those idiots. See, that's the difference, I have no problem saying flat out that those people just suck. I won't sit here and try to justify them and say we need to understand their valid grievances. Also, as offensive and hateful as those folks are, as far as I know, they haven't killed anyone or cut off anyone's hands or heads.

Click to expand...

so I don't get your point. The majority of Muslims have always distanced themselves from terrorists.

X Factor said:

Without looking at your link (because I don't have time right now), I think Jews are still targets of "hate" crimes more than any other group.

Click to expand...

really?

I would like to see some stats to back that up.