That is hilarious.
A religion is as its believers -- TODAY -- lives. .
And that concept is rather difficult to grasp for 98.5% of Muslims in the world today.
No, Islam Isn’t Inherently Violent, And The Math Proves It!
- Thread starter Norwegian
- Start date
And that concept is rather difficult to grasp for 98.5% of Muslims in the world today.
TankMan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2014
- Messages
- 3,213
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
It depends on the translation. On that same website, to the right, is an option to select different translations. The one selected by default, Sahih International, uses one of the 3 meanings of the word alaqah (mentioned by @Akheilos) . Most Quranic translations use the word 'clot' or 'blood clot' but the Arabic word does in fact have three meanings.
And even then 'clot' is an accurate enough description of an embryo.
Abraham is mostly believed to have lived around 2000-1800 BC.
Yes, but there is something very important in common with all those disbelievers - they are all directly addressed by a messenger and they all are shown the truth to their faces, they recognize it, then they reject it out of arrogance.
Aside from that, the Quran also speaks about Christians, Jews and Sabeans having nothing to fear if they believe in God, the last day and do righteous deeds (Al Baqarah 2:62).
It's not as simple as just 'being exposed to Quran's ayats'. Many people are 'exposed' to ayats out of context, twisted around to make them mean something they do not actually mean. Most people, for example, would reject At-Tawbah's ''verse of the Sword'' (9:5, ''kill them wherever you find them'') if it is shown to them out of context. Would you then consider those people to be Kafir?
Being exposed to the actual message of the Quran, in a proper and reasonably correct manner, is required for someone to reject it and become a Kafir.
Now, tell me, how many non-Muslims today do you think have been exposed to the message in such a way? How many Muslims today are capable of conveying the correct message? The most exposure to Islam most non-Muslims have is either extremist propaganda or anti-Islam propaganda. We are in no position to call them Kafir, at all.
The SC
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 32,233
- Reaction score
- 21
- Country
- Location
You can start here, there are many Ayats and references to scholarly books about the subject.
Kufr and its various kinds
- islamqa.info
Types of disbelief
Adapted from 'Tafseer ibn Katheer. The Qur'an uses the word kufr to denote a person who covers up or hides realities, one who refuses to accept the dominion and authority of God (Allāh). There are several types of Al-Kufr al-Akbar:
- Kufrul-'Inaad: Disbelief out of stubbornness. This applies to someone who knows the Truth and admits to knowing the Truth, and knowing it with his tongue, but refuses to accept it and refrains from making a declaration. Allah says: Throw into Hell every stubborn disbeliever
- Kufrul-Inkaar: Disbelief out of denial. This applies to someone who denies with both heart and tongue. Allah says: They recognize the favors of Allah, yet they deny them. Most of them are disbelievers.[13]
- Kufrul-Kibr: Disbelief out of arrogance and pride. An example of this type of Kufr is the disbelief by the devils (Iblees).
- Kufrul-Juhood: Disbelief out of rejection.This applies to someone who acknowledges the truth in his heart, but rejects it with his tongue. This type of kufr is applicable to those who calls themselves Muslims but who reject any necessary and accepted norms of Islam such as Salaat and Zakat. Allah says: They denied them (OUR SIGNS) even though their hearts believed in them, out of spite and arrogance.
- Kufrul-Nifaaq: Disbelief out of hypocrisy.This applies to someone who pretends to be a believer but conceals his disbelief. Such a person is called a munafiq or hypocrite. Allah says: Verily the hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of Hell. You will find no one to help them.
- Kufrul-Istihaal: Disbelief out of trying to make haraam into halal. This applies to someone who accepts as lawful Halal that which Allah has made unlawful Haram like alcohol or adultery. Only Allah has the prerogative to make things Halal and Haram and those who seek to interfere with His right are like rivals to Him and therefore fall outside the boundaries of faith.
- Kufrul-Kurh: Disbelief out of detesting any of Allah's commands. Allah says: Perdition (destruction) has been consigned to those who disbelieve and He will render their actions void. This is because they are averse to that which Allah has revealed so He has made their actions fruitless.
- Kufrul-Istihzaha: Disbelief due to mockery and derision. Allah says: Say: Was it at Allah, His signs and His apostles that you were mocking? Make no excuses. You have disbelieved after you have believed.
- Kufrul-I'raadh: Disbelief due to avoidance. This applies to those who turn away and avoid the truth. Allah says: And who is more unjust than he who is reminded of his Lord's signs but then turns away from them. Then he forgets what he has sent forward (for the Day of Judgement)
- Kufrul-Istibdaal: Disbelief because of trying to substitute Allah's Laws. This could take the form of:
- Rejection of Allah's law, Shari'ah without denying it
- Denial of Allah's law and therefore rejecting it, or
- Substituting Allah's laws with man-made laws. Allah says: Or have they partners with Allah who have instituted for them a religion which Allah has not allowed. Allah says: Say not concerning that which your tongues put forth falsely (that) is lawful and this is forbidden so as to invent a lie against Allah. Verily, those who invent a lie against Allah will never prosper.
And to stay on topic:
"Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers." 060.008
The behavior of the followers of any religion, does not change the essence of that religion. Even if every human being becomes an atheist it will not change anything for the existence of GOD. Religion is here to show humans a better way to live than by the animalistic instincts.
I am asking you to put yourself 1400 yrs ago in a desert and tell me if you could even think of such things being uneducated? Go to any random village in India near the desert and get similar info
Coz every Indian on PDF actually thinks Wiki is the bible!
That was just an observation!
In Arabic Muslim is one who peacefully bows to the will of ALLAH meaning adhere's to god's law...Abraham did so hence according to Arabic the word Muslim fits!
"Indeed, there is for you a good example in Ibrahim and those with him when they said to their people: Surely we are clear of you and of what you serve besides Allah; we declare ourselves to be clear of you, and enmity and hatred have appeared between us and you forever until you believe in Allah alone-- but not in what Ibrahim said to his father: I would certainly ask forgiveness for you, and I do not control for you aught from Allah-- Our Lord! on Thee do we rely, and to Thee do we turn, and to Thee is the eventual coming:" Quran
That is the female uterus, it is quite firm.
It takes one sperm from a male ejaculation (i.e.; one sperm drop) to fertilize an ovum and thus make a baby.
That is right.
I was talking about the ones who could not be reached at all, and for those, untill the messages reachs them and they reject it we can not call them Kafirs.
The ones you are talking about know the real message, the double headed propaganda is staged to cover the truth. and that is the exact definition of kufr.
TankMan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2014
- Messages
- 3,213
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
There is nothing in this post I disagree, or ever disagreed, with. Ends the debate with me.
That is as ostrish a comment as any. The religion may be there but if its followers misrepresent it or not partake in its true essence, then they aren't doing any justice to it. Just as the Quran is the guidance for all Mankind, but use it to justify the burning of men or underage marriage and anyone who hears of the Quran will call it a despicable book, regardless of what is it in it or not. It is not our problem to protect the Quran, its our problem to show ourselves as better. Burying our heads into the ground on the flimsy excuse of "they may think of us as they like" without making the slightest effort is our own fallacy.
The SC
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 32,233
- Reaction score
- 21
- Country
- Location
I'll give you a hint and do what ever you want with it. Islam is the religion that attract more converts than any other religion on earth...as we speak.
So, I do not want to dwell in how Islam is represented. We all know who is behind that wishful thinking and day dreaming propaganda. As yo know or should know, humans learn by repetition like animals see " Pavlov's experiments", and the media-propaganda machine counts on that to make people believe in things as it portrays them day and night by reinforcing those wanted thoughts and thus behaviors that are subject to those thoughts, since any behavior or action is preceded by a thought. This is called subconscious manipulation. And luckily Human population in the countries where you find the most converts to Islam are quite educated, thus less vulnerable to such deep mind manipulation attempts.
Last edited:
Dubious
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 37,717
- Reaction score
- 80
- Country
- Location
Or maybe because it doesnt apply...The news very often shows only Muslims in bad shoes....Do you expect to tell me not a single Muslim in USA has done a good thing till date? If yes why isnt it on news? It nearly killed large newsagents to show the death of the 3 Muslims in USA....speaks volumes of what is represented in media isnt what 98.5% of Muslims are hence why attribute to us what the remainder are (which media never misses showing) If that is how you do reality checks then Israel being on media day in and out should speak heaps to public about JEWS not Israelis alone, right?
@gambit same goes for you judging with your narrow judgmental window of lies!
The basics in the link itself answers everything:
Kufr in Arabic means covering and concealing something. - Kufr and its various kinds
- islamqa.info
Let me help correct your comment if say 1.5% of the followers misrepresent it does it mean that all 98.5% are to be ignored and the whole religion is to be viewed from the eyes of the 1.5% ? How much justice are you squeezing on this one?
So the worth of a make of any car is to be viewed by how many times it has been crashed? Well that doesnt make sense to anyone!
Brother I swear sometimes you sound like a retard! When have any of those who justified burning of men and underage marriage used the quran? No verse in the Quran supports any of this! So blaming the Quran is as unjust as the justice you so much seek!
The simple question first arises how many HAVE heard the book and understood it? If today I spoke something in Malay and asked you to accept it will you call Malay despicable regardless of what I said? That is really the mindset of those who ignore truth...Why? Coz you dont want to know something and already lable it based on what the tv shows you...Its called judgmental and it isnt a desired state of mind
It is our problem of showcasing ourselves...When we disassociate with those who do wrong under the name of Islam by presenting evidence that such is wrong, we are not even shown in the media i.e. the open letter to Bhagdadi how many times was it aired and by how many channels? While the pix of ISIS (same ugly guy) beheading - how many times was that aired? Psychologist would tell you that is actually brainwashing by not giving you a chance to choose when the choice is already made to be biased!
And THAT is not our fault and must stop before asking for more from an average Muslim! No one bashed the whole atheist community nor the White Supremists when the 3 Muslims were shot for no reason in USA! take that as a wake up call ....when you expect soo much from others you should do your share too!
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Criminals ? No, the Muslims who burned a caged man to death were not 'criminals', if you were trying to use the word 'criminal' in the legal sense. If something is not legally explicitly forbidden then it is legally allowed. Simple as that.
I have said it many times before and will repeat: We do not live our lives in intellectual and moral vacuums.
Everything we do, even biological acts, have justifications. I eat because of hunger. I drink because of thirst. If I rob a bank, it is because of want of money or a complex reasoning that involves money.
When Anjem Choudary said the Quran forbids him to have any sympathy for non-Muslims, he did not qualify his statement with the Kama Sutra, or the Bible, or the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Choudary explicitly mentioned the Quran. You may disagree with him but unless you can prove he used another 'holy' book to justify -- wrongly or rightly -- his belief, then the commonality between you, Choudary, and over one billion people is Islam.
So yes: A religion IS as its believers DOES. Not what happened one thousand yrs ago or even one hundred yrs ago, but TODAY.
Yeah...A supposedly 'math' that 'proved' Christians are more violent than Muslims is real mature.
TankMan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2014
- Messages
- 3,213
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
As per Syrian Law, killing a Prisoner of War (using any means, including fire) is legally, explicitly forbidden. Same with Iraqi Law and International Law. Killing absolutely anything with fire is also explicitly forbidden by Islam.
Now, under what basis do you say that the people who burned a man to death were not criminals?
It is very easy to find dozens of such justifications for terrorists' actions if you look at the matter from a political perspective instead of a religiously biased perspective.
The fact that there is nothing in the Quran that says what he is saying, in fact it explicitly goes against what he is saying, shows that there is no commonality between Anjem and over one billion Muslims, including me.
One question then: Is a religion what the majority of its believers does or is it what a minority of its believers does? Because if it's the minority, Breivik must be Christianity personified. But if it's the majority, how does a minority like the 'Islamic' terrorists end up representing the whole religion? Apply the same logic equally.
Unless your argument is that the majority of Muslims does the same as ISIS, in which case we should all be dead right now. But I assure you, the majority of Muslims along with the ideology itself is not like that.
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
When Syria is in COMPLETE control of her territory.
People often scoffs at the concept of 'international law' and we casually use that phrase when convenient. But legal scholars and courtroom experts know that a law is no good if there is no credible threat of punishment when there is a violation of the law.
This is about the moral justification for thought and/or deed. It includes all factors, from politics, local and personal, to religion, to education, to life experience, and so on. The fact that YOU insists one way but another insists another way from the same source is indicative of the moral flexibility BOTH of you exercised out of your own biased needs.
Take it up with him about the Quran. But as far as us non-Muslims goes, there is a commonality between the two of you: Islam.
How about both, minority and majority ?
People maybe wrong, but seldom are we stupid. It is not so much a single act and/or event that define a perception, which maybe right or wrong, but it is about a pattern of events that contribute to the formation of a perception. A pattern imply time, and in this case, the time span is decades, as in since the end of WW II.
The end of WW II meant the end of colonialism and the Muslims have their own countries to set their own ways in the world and in history. The Western countries rebuilt after WW II. We helped not just our own but as much as we can in the rest of the world. The methods and executions were not always perfect in ideals and results, but essentially, what have been the same pattern in the ME since the end of WW II ?
MastanKhan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 21,269
- Reaction score
- 166
- Country
- Location
Hi,
I don't know why you Pakistani kids are tryig to defend your religion like that on that backfoot----the proof is in the pudding--. The US forces were involved in the killings of over a million and a half Iraqis in GW 2----and before that---due to the U S imposed sanctions over a million Iraqi children died between 1991 and 2002---.
Chrisrianity has murdered more muslims in the last 100 years---last 500 years---last 1000 years---. And as much as the christianstry to castigate Islam---Islam is still the largest growing religion in the world---.
Anjum Chaudhry is a terrorists who has grown in stature due to the backing of the Bristish Govt. If the Bristish thought of him as a real threat---they would have executed him---.
I don't know why you Pakistani kids are tryig to defend your religion like that on that backfoot----the proof is in the pudding--. The US forces were involved in the killings of over a million and a half Iraqis in GW 2----and before that---due to the U S imposed sanctions over a million Iraqi children died between 1991 and 2002---.
Chrisrianity has murdered more muslims in the last 100 years---last 500 years---last 1000 years---. And as much as the christianstry to castigate Islam---Islam is still the largest growing religion in the world---.
Anjum Chaudhry is a terrorists who has grown in stature due to the backing of the Bristish Govt. If the Bristish thought of him as a real threat---they would have executed him---.
TankMan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2014
- Messages
- 3,213
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
Hold on - first you said they aren't violating any law because it's not ''legally explicitly forbidden'' to burn a man to death. Now you're moving the goalposts and saying the law needs to be enforced and the state needs to be in 'complete'control of its territory for it to apply - just for something as blatantly illegal as burning a man to death to be considered a criminal act.
Then you say there is no credible threat of punishment - don't you consider 'being bombed to death' to be a 'credible' enough punishment?
What about the fact that the same Islamic Law ISIS claims to uphold explicitly, clearly and specifically forbids the use of fire to kill anything? If they believe in the religion, they should also believe in the punishment of God for violating his orders - thus, that should be enough 'credible threat of punishment'.
The reason they do it and the way they justify it are two entirely different things.
No, it is indicative of the extent certain people would go to create justification for their actions. The fact that they have to go out of their way to conveniently misinterpret some verses, 'forget' to read the other verses, practically corrupt even more of them and then simply ignore any arguments that go against their ''biased needs'' shows that they're not doing what they're doing on the basis of theology or religion.
The cause is not religion. Their means is religion. It's not the religion that gets them to do it. They get the religion to justify what they're doing.
Not that easy to get in touch with him. Even if I do manage - will try sometime - he'll most likely resort to typical mullah antics (or worse) as is common for people like him.
Why not. Majority has problems but is peaceful and moderate, going about their lives, trying to tackle issues in their own countries or settling in others.
Minority is violent and extremist, destroying lives and creating issues in their own countries while exporting them to others.
I'd disagree with that statement, 'seldom are we stupid' - people very frequently are stupid, but since that's not the topic i'll let it be.
The end of WW2 did not mean the end of the mistakes caused by Western colonialism. From the infamous 'British way' of drawing borders to the tensions cultivated intentionally for the 'divide and rule' policy, none of that ended after WW2.
While the West had its 'final showdown' in WW2 and the Cold War - the climax of tensions and problems that led to that much destruction but definitely caused a change of course - the Middle East did not have that. All they were left with were old ingrained problems and divisions that began eating away at it ever since they got their 'freedom' ; in a way similar to the problems the West faced during its history before WW2.
And no, the West (or 'you' as you seem to prefer), did not 'help' the rest of the world. None of what you ever did was out of goodwill. It was all out of interest and greed. The results weren't good because the intentions weren't good. From toppling infantile governments at will to invading countries, fighting proxy wars and poking missiles everywhere - how can you even consider that to be goodwill.
Imagine what would've happened if some (non-declining and actually capable) superpower decided to 'intervene' during the American civil war, support separatist groups as proxies (say, the rebellious native tribes) while the US was in its infancy, at the same time invading Mexico and Canada, sending millions of refuges pouring into the US - then dragging the country into their own wars, causing internal dissent from the refugees - all that coupled with constantly messing with the country's internal politics, supporting some leaders and opposing others, throwing funds around and openly assassinating people it (the superpower) considered a threat.
What do you think North America would look like in the hypothetical scenario I mentioned above? Do you think it'd have been any better than the Middle East?
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
When you call someone a 'criminal', the proper context of the word imply the person is UNDER JURISDICTION of an authority. In a region where there are contestant authority figures, such as a civil war situation, and if the contest is severe enough that each side can only exercise physical authority in limited geographies, whatever law previously created or recently created are equally limited. History is filled with these situations, including new countries created like your Pakistan, where previous laws and the legal system no longer apply.
If half the country controlled by A have no laws against being left handed, but the half controlled by B does have such a law, then left handed people under B's jurisdiction would be legally 'criminals'.
This is about temporal laws, not whatever religious version that may or may not exist. Until you prove to me that Allah exist, I will uphold temporal laws as supremacy.
So what ? I do not care -- until they finally act. I have to deal with the physical results from an action. Anything prior is purely academic.
I do not care. Those details are internal to the theological debates inside Islam. But that still does not take away from the core issue: That Islam is the foundation for those interpretations. If an interpretation is a 'misinterpretation', that is YOUR responsibility to sort it out, not ours to determine who is right and who is wrong.
To you, Anjem Choudary is an anomaly. But to him and his kind, YOU are the anomaly. We do not care on the theology, sophistry, and any sort of mental gymnastics you engages in to show us who is the anomaly. Sort it out among yourselves. But if we have to deal with the consequences, then we will form our own perceptions of you.
Absolutely. Consider both majority and minority when forming perceptions of religions.
No...You cannot dismiss this that easily. From what I am seeing so far, the non-Muslims are stupid but not you ? We are stupid because we cannot see YOUR viewpoint that people like Anjem Choudary is wrong, and we are stupid because we cannot see Choudary's viewpoint that you are wrong. No matter what, it is the non-Muslims who are always wrong and stupid.
This argument is done for. No one takes it seriously. The Muslims have their ow countries and filled with oil wealth. They contribute and influence global affairs and they did it for their own interests, no different than any experienced power. They are courted by contestant governments under diametrically opposed ideologies. If you chose to squabble among yourselves over some tribal issues thousands of yrs old, that is your problems, or rather should be your problems. Whenever you cannot settle your differences among yourselves, you blame it on a convenient scapegoat -- colonialism. People are so tired of it that they automatically tuned you out, like turning the knob on a radio, from static to something worthwhile hearing.
Black Widow
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2011
- Messages
- 6,130
- Reaction score
- -17
If this member's ban is motivated by this post, then it shows sheer intolerance of Muslim towards criticism...
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
I am 52 yrs old. But if there is a god, then I swear to that god that I am probably the most progressive person on this forum.
I am progressive in the sense that I use history to look for flashpoints where certain beliefs and actions combined to produce an event worthy of being a lesson for later generations, then I use those discoveries to see if there are comparables today and how likely they are to produce the same or similar outcome for the future.
That is seldom seen on this forum. So many -- if not most -- here grossly romanticized the past to the point that they personalized injustices and grievances when not even their grandparents lived under those injustices and grievances. They want to make the present like that romanticized past and insist the future can be of the same vision.
The result is the mess that we see in the world today.
I am progressive in the sense that I use history to look for flashpoints where certain beliefs and actions combined to produce an event worthy of being a lesson for later generations, then I use those discoveries to see if there are comparables today and how likely they are to produce the same or similar outcome for the future.
That is seldom seen on this forum. So many -- if not most -- here grossly romanticized the past to the point that they personalized injustices and grievances when not even their grandparents lived under those injustices and grievances. They want to make the present like that romanticized past and insist the future can be of the same vision.
The result is the mess that we see in the world today.
Similar threads
- Article
