lush Posted 23 August 2005 Author Posted 23 August 2005 I'm worried on your behalf and for mankind if the message you are putting out is listened to . Many people on here have set out clear arguments against what you are saying but you still go back to one line from the Koran written thousands of years ago and apply it to modern day Britain . Why not look for the peaceful passages and then pass them onto the Muslims instead of antagonising the moderates even further . Your rantings are stirring up hatred between Man and Man when we should be looking for peaceful ways to solve the problem. To resolve disagreements you have to empaphise with your opponent. You have to acknowledge other peoples point of view . I'm afraid this you have failed to do. It isn't obvious to you because you have a way of selecting parts of peoples posts and using them in a misleading way. Do you understand me? Have I made myself clear? 161710[/snapback] The message im putting out is one of stopping evil thought behaviour. Thats the problem. What this belief meant 1000 years ago, makes no sense now in british society. You attempt to portray it in a british court, and you`ll be laughed at. The peacefull passages dont harm me, the evil ones do. If moderate muslims have something to fear from my posts, then they dont want me telling the truth. If a belief is stiring up hatred, then that belief should take a long look at itself. I do acknowledge other peoples point of view, that doesnt mean i have to agree with them, like you dont agree with mine. Do you agree with a 1000 year old belief, that doesnt hold any bearing on british society today?
Rincewind Posted 23 August 2005 Posted 23 August 2005 I must stop banging my head against the wall. It gives me awful headaches. The word used most often in Quran, that is so often mistranslated as kill; slay; or slaughter is not jihad, it is qital and if you look to the Arabic, you will quickly understand this word in today's usage would clearly be combat.
lush Posted 23 August 2005 Author Posted 23 August 2005 Dont bang your head, answer this question: Do you agree with a 1000 year old belief, that doesnt hold any bearing on british society today?
MC Prussian Posted 23 August 2005 Posted 23 August 2005 Obviously you havnt a clue whats been said, so i`d like to ask you this:Do you think it would be ok, for you to murder a forest fan, if a forest fan attacked a city fan? 161988[/snapback] Do you have a clue? What is your point exactly?
MC Prussian Posted 23 August 2005 Posted 23 August 2005 Dont bang your head, answer this question:Do you agree with a 1000 year old belief, that doesnt hold any bearing on british society today? 162151[/snapback] Islam is a bit older than that. Plus, this is what Mohammed said about (religious) tolerance: About 1400 years ago, in his last sermon, Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) said: “All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white  except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not therefore do injustice to yourselves. Remember one day you will meet Allah and answer your deeds. So beware: Do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone.†Find more information here My theory is that all religions have one common ground to start from. I would go even that far to say that Jesus and Mohammed are the same person. But nowadays, it's all emphasis on how different we all are when we should focus on what we have in common. We are all human beings. Apart from an ignorant person called Lush maybe, who acts a bit silly occasionally. Doesn't want to read background information. Instead accuses others of wrongdoing.
Ultra Posted 23 August 2005 Posted 23 August 2005 I've spent a while looking through this thread and am glad to see that others have noted, and condemned, the nonsense being spouted by the gruesome twosome. :thumbsup: However, before any others feel compelled to twist quotes from the Koran out of context (and by strange coincidence, they're usually the same as those appearing on BNP sites), can I advise them to check out this site and realise that others can do exactly the same to the Bible. Witch-hunts against ANY specific faith should be resisted.
Rincewind Posted 23 August 2005 Posted 23 August 2005 The word used most often in Quran, that is so often mistranslated as kill; slay; or slaughter is not jihad, it is qital and if you look to the Arabic, you will quickly understand this word in today's usage would clearly be combat.
lush Posted 23 August 2005 Author Posted 23 August 2005 Do you have a clue? What is your point exactly? 162164[/snapback] Its islamic law/rule (call it whatever you like) that if a pagan attacks islam/a muslim, that muslims can slay a pagan (the verse i was on about, including the whole context).
MC Prussian Posted 23 August 2005 Posted 23 August 2005 I've spent a while looking through this thread and am glad to see that others have noted, and condemned, the nonsense being spouted by the gruesome twosome. :thumbsup: However, before any others feel compelled to twist quotes from the Koran out of context (and by strange coincidence, they're usually the same as those appearing on BNP sites), can I advise them to check out this site and realise that others can do exactly the same to the Bible. Witch-hunts against ANY specific faith should be resisted. 162173[/snapback] All I say is: Remember the Holy Inquisition... Brrr... Next step would be to find out if Lush is a member of the BNP or sponsored by them... ... after having him read that Guardian article, of course.
Rincewind Posted 23 August 2005 Posted 23 August 2005 The word used most often in Quran, that is so often mistranslated as kill; slay; or slaughter is not jihad, it is qital and if you look to the Arabic, you will quickly understand this word in today's usage would clearly be combat.
MC Prussian Posted 23 August 2005 Posted 23 August 2005 Its islamic law/rule (call it whatever you like) that if a pagan attacks islam/a muslim, that muslims can slay a pagan (the verse i was on about, including the whole context). 162176[/snapback] Have you read Ken's post? Replace "slay" by "combat" and you'll get a whole new meaning... And why should I want to combat somebody when he hasn't done me any harm at all?
lush Posted 23 August 2005 Author Posted 23 August 2005 “All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white  except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not therefore do injustice to yourselves. 162165[/snapback] It is great that islam speaks what you wrote. What i want to know is, why doesnt the book(s) of islam denounce the pottential slaying of pagans, regardless of whether it is justyfiable or not in whatever context it preaches, to fit in with british society and law?
MC Prussian Posted 23 August 2005 Posted 23 August 2005 It is great that islam speaks what you wrote.What i want to know is, why doesnt the book(s) of islam denounce the pottential slaying of pagans, regardless of whether it is justyfiable or not in whatever context it preaches, to fit in with british society and law? 162182[/snapback] I cannot understand how - after all attempts - you still persist on using the wrong term "slaying" instead of "combatting". I cannot understand how you still blackpaint a whole religion based on excerpts and misinterpretations of one of the most vague books ever written (just like the Bible). Why don't you start creating your own religion? Peace and out. What's your point of view on that Guardian article, btw?
lush Posted 23 August 2005 Author Posted 23 August 2005 Have you read Ken's post? Replace "slay" by "combat" and you'll get a whole new meaning...And why should I want to combat somebody when he hasn't done me any harm at all? 162180[/snapback] Combat can mean kill, aswell as defend, not harm. So its still slay. According to dunc, if islam or muslims are attacked by a pagan (as 1000 years ago) the qu`ran says a muslim can combat/slay any pagan they find. Analogy: if someone in britain kills someone, its not the british way to attack back, it is wrong, therefore islam rule/law is wrong. Do you understand what im saying mate?
MC Prussian Posted 23 August 2005 Posted 23 August 2005 Combat can mean kill, aswell as defend, not harm. So its still slay.According to dunc, if islam or muslims are attacked by a pagan (as 1000 years ago) the qu`ran says a muslim can combat/slay any pagan they find. Analogy: if someone in britain kills someone, its not the british way to attack back, it is wrong, therefore islam rule/law is wrong. Do you understand what im saying mate? 162191[/snapback] You don't understand, do you? It's written in your own post! The word "combat" has various meanings and does not necessarily mean "slay"! But if you want to maintain your interpretation, fine. I call it ignorance. "Combat" can also mean "challenge" and doesn't need to include physical attacks. Like slaying. Plus, you cannot just "combat" any pagan you want to, you'd still have to check it with a round of wise men. And again, why should I want to attack a Muslim? I don't hold any grudges against them. They're just people like you and me. With a different belief.
Fox Shagger Posted 23 August 2005 Posted 23 August 2005 The background in which this verse was revealed During the first thirteen years of his prophetic mission, Muhammad (pbuh) and his followers were subjected to the most brutal persecution by the Quraish tribe of Makkah. They were even forced to live in a valley adjacent to Makkah, subject to a very severe form of boycott. Subsequently they were driven out of their homes, all their property confiscated, and many of them were tortured and killed; and they would all have been massacred if they had not escaped to Madinah. In Madinah, the Muslims were received very honorably by the people of that city, and eventually Muhammad (pbuh) was accepted as a leader of the communities there. Hearing of the popularity of the prophet in Madinah, the Makkans were upset; for they expected a campaign from Madinah to revenge on them. Fearing this, they wanted to destroy Muhammad and “his†Islam! There were some events, which intensified this fear; all of which prompted the Makkans to gather a powerful army and march towards Madinah. At this time, Muhammad (pbuh) and his followers could have fled to some other city to escape the Makkan army; for the Muslims were only one-third of the large army that were marching towards them. Also, they were ill equipped for war. But at this time, God’s command came to Muhammad (pbuh) to stand his ground and fight. It was in this context permission to fight was given. This battle took place at Badr, where the Muslims who were only 313 persons and who had very little war equipment - by the standards of those days - defeated a well-equipped army of a thousand fighters from Makkah. This was a war between the forces of truth and falsehood; and truth won. After this battle, the Makkans did not remain idle; their pride was wounded, and they waged many more battles with the Muslims. Meanwhile, the Muslims were growing in numbers and strength in Madinah. Under divine guidance, the prophet (pbuh) was able to form a society and a government in Madinah. Its constitution was the Qur’an; its laws were derived from the Qur’an. It was a truly Islamic government, which had to make provisions for those who had not become Muslims. Those who did not become Muslims were not compelled to become Muslims; but naturally, they were asked to obey the laws of the government. Some of the problems faced by the Muslims, as a political community, are discussed in Surah 9. One major question is what the Muslims should do if the enemies break faith and commit treachery. This was with reference to the pagans’ breaking of the treaties made between them and the Muslims. No nation can go on with a treaty, if the other nation violates it at will! This is evident in verse 5 of Surah 9: *{But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem [of war]; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and pay zakah, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.}* The first clause in the verse refers to the time-honored Arab custom of a period of warning and waiting given to the offenders, after a clear violation. That is, they will be given four months time to repair the damage done or make peace. But, if nothing happens after the expiry of these forbidden months, what should be done? This is what the present verse says. According to this verse, fighting must be resumed until one of the two things happens; either the enemy should be vanquished by relentless fighting [that is what is meant by *{then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem [of war]}*; or they should *{repent, establish prayers and pay zakah}*… etc. This is one of those verses of the Qur’an, which are misunderstood when quoted out of context. We must understand that this fighting was against a people; the pagans who forced the prophet and his companions to leave, not only their own homes, but all their property and even their hometown of Makkah to Madinah. Once the Muslims were organized into a community in those lawless times, the rules to be followed by the Muslims were clearly laid down, even in the matter of war. This verse is particularly about the rule of law. Once the Islamic government is established with Madinah as headquarters, it was the duty of the citizens to follow the law of the land. The Muslims had to pay zakah, according to the shari`a, while the non-Muslims were required to pay the jizya - a tax in lieu of the Muslim zakah. To deny this tax to the government is open defiance of the government and it should be countered with punitive steps. This is a principle followed in all modern governments. The choice is either to become a Muslim and obey all Islamic regulations or to continue as non-Muslim, paying jizya and being subject to the government. The points to be noted here are as follows: As stated in Qur’an 5: 48, religious diversity is tolerated, though not recommended. This is because Allah’s command is for all humans to be united in obeying Him, in all paths of life. But, no force is to be used in the matter of religious belief or practice. God does not ask the Muslims to fight the unbelievers for the reason that they are unbelievers. It was because they were the persecutors or aggressors that fighting against them became necessary. Also, it is clearly stated that the permission for fighting is given only until they cease hostilities. Source Please read that, I doubt you knew anything about this. If you still believe Islam is about killing random pagans when ever and where ever you like, you are stupid.
lush Posted 23 August 2005 Author Posted 23 August 2005 You don't understand, do you? It's written in your own post! The word "combat" has various meanings and does not necessarily mean "slay"! But if you want to maintain your interpretation, fine. I call it ignorance.And again, why should I want to attack a Muslim? I don't hold any grudges against them. They're just people like you and me. With a different belief. 162194[/snapback] Can it never mean slay? Who said you would wana attack a muslim?
MC Prussian Posted 23 August 2005 Posted 23 August 2005 Can it never mean slay?Who said you would wana attack a muslim? 162197[/snapback] You don't read posts and articles properly, do you? You just can't be arsed, right?
lush Posted 23 August 2005 Author Posted 23 August 2005 According to this verse, fighting must be resumed until one of the two things happens; either the enemy should be vanquished by relentless fighting [that is what is meant by *{then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem [of war]}*; or they should *{repent, establish prayers and pay zakah}*… etc.This is one of those verses of the Qur’an, which are misunderstood when quoted out of context . We must understand that this fighting was against a people; the pagans who forced the prophet and his companions to leave, not only their own homes, but all their property and even their hometown of Makkah to Madinah. Once the Muslims were organized into a community in those lawless times, the rules to be followed by the Muslims were clearly laid down, even in the matter of war. This verse is particularly about the rule of law. Once the Islamic government is established with Madinah as headquarters, it was the duty of the citizens to follow the law of the land. The Muslims had to pay zakah, according to the shari`a, while the non-Muslims were required to pay the jizya - a tax in lieu of the Muslim zakah. To deny this tax to the government is open defiance of the government and it should be countered with punitive steps. This is a principle followed in all modern governments. The choice is either to become a Muslim and obey all Islamic regulations or to continue as non-Muslim, paying jizya and being subject to the government. 162195[/snapback] Are you saying that the qu`ran says that if islam/muslims are attacked, that muslims can attack back?
lush Posted 23 August 2005 Author Posted 23 August 2005 You don't read posts and articles properly, do you? You just can't be arsed, right? 162199[/snapback] have you EVER answered my questions?????????????????????? Your anti-lush stance wont win over me, ive come accross bigger evil than you, your a mere pawn compared. Run on.
Fox Shagger Posted 23 August 2005 Posted 23 August 2005 Are you saying that the qu`ran says that if islam/muslims are attacked, that muslims can attack back? 162203[/snapback] Yes, if Muslims are attacked, they are allowed to fight back as are Christians and Jews.
Ultra Posted 23 August 2005 Posted 23 August 2005 You don't read posts and articles properly, do you? You just can't be arsed, right? 162199[/snapback] Spot on, Swiss Fox! Don't waste any more time arguing with him, he's not worth it!
lush Posted 23 August 2005 Author Posted 23 August 2005 Yes, if Muslims are attacked, they are allowed to fight back as are Christians and Jews. 162206[/snapback] RIGHT, we finally get to the truth!!! ISLAM, is alien to british society. ISLAM is a bad and wicked faith in british society. SERIOUS muslims (2 million of them in britain) DO NOT adhere to british law. ALL decent people must fight (according to fox shagger) islam !!!
Fox Shagger Posted 23 August 2005 Posted 23 August 2005 Which Muslims have been attacked in the UK then?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.