Just glad it's over in the end RIP, and also glad they saved so many
Gunmen attack Mumbai in at least seven places
- Thread starter mehro
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Which site did you copy trash that from?
I wish you stopped your habit of editing posts after I have replied. Making my posts seem retarded.
Sultan I have heard the same type of interpretation before so I don't see why it's automatically trash only because you disagree? Unless you claim to hold the only authoritative interpretation of Islam and think there cannot possibly exist any other..
So Sultan, are you saying it's not every Muslim's duty to serve Allah by actively trying to convert people to Islam?
Well I've just gotten back to campus.Had plans to go to Goa on 27th via Bombay. Got there by train on 26th night...was above Leopold's when the first batch of terrorists arrived and started shooting. We saw people running...decided to stick to the hotel room.Waited for a bit, went down to see what the scene was(gang wars are common in Bombay) but the thing was, this was the first time I'd heard this kind of submachine gun fire. My old man was in the army and I was used to regular militant attacks in Kashmir. But to hear an AK in the middle of a Bombay street was unnerving as feck.
We still didn't gauge the enormity of it because we waited till it quietened down and then left our baggage in the room and went out for dinner.Saw a couple of people with bullet wounds being helped into the backs on cabs to hospitals. Was on the road next to the Oberoi andheard two bombs go off in the space on 2 minutes at around 10.30. We decided to get as far away as possible. Missed an encounter with the terrorists near the beach by a whisker...Also heard that there had been attacks at the Taj and Oberoi while on Marine drive...Went and stayed at a friends place in Marine Drive in near house arrest conditions for two days.
Caught a plane back yesterday...back on campus now.
We still didn't gauge the enormity of it because we waited till it quietened down and then left our baggage in the room and went out for dinner.Saw a couple of people with bullet wounds being helped into the backs on cabs to hospitals. Was on the road next to the Oberoi andheard two bombs go off in the space on 2 minutes at around 10.30. We decided to get as far away as possible. Missed an encounter with the terrorists near the beach by a whisker...Also heard that there had been attacks at the Taj and Oberoi while on Marine drive...Went and stayed at a friends place in Marine Drive in near house arrest conditions for two days.
Caught a plane back yesterday...back on campus now.
One of the terrorists caught alive.
I'm slightly confused with this question, and why it is asked.
Of course it is a duty of every person to wish the best for their fellow human beings. I, being a Muslim believe the path to success both in this world, and the hereafter is the pure teachings of Islam - Christians, Jews, will follow similar line of thought, except they will believe their line of understanding is the best to achieve success.
I thought 'active conversion' was not meant to be forced? Didn't Mohammed say that?
Christianity yes, that is definitely a proselytizing religion like Islam. Judaism does not share this as far as I'm aware; it does not seek to convert others to their beliefs.
The reason I ask this question is to try and understand whether the idea of everyone being Islamic is some kind of idealogical ideal held by most Muslims. Do they think it would be preferable if everyone followed Islam? If they do, then they surely agree with the terrorists on that point at least, they just strongly disagree with the tactics used to go about it?
Some quotes from the Qur'an that perhaps back up this world view:
"God's curse be upon the infidels!" (2:89)
"God is the enemy of the unbelievers" (2:98)
"But the infidels who die unbelievers shall incur the curse of God, the angels, and all men. Under it they shall remain for ever; their punishments shall not be lightened, nor shall they be reprieved" (2:162)
"How steadfastly they seek the Fire! That is because God has revealed the Book with truth; those that disagree about it are in extreme schism" (2:176)
I don't see how this squares with "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) personally.
Unless I've slipped up somewhere in a reply, of course it's every Muslims duty to wish for others what they wish for themselves. However, we might differ on the definition of active.
The article you posted talks about violence only in the case of self-defence.
I'm just reading the Quran at the moment and I find it difficult to find that for example here
http://www.mysticletters.com/quran-viewer/arabic-yusuf-ali/8.php
in the first 40 or so verses Mohamed talks about what to do when he is being attacked by an Unbeliever. I have the impression, at least from reading that text, that he is propagating a general view of a pretty violent treatment of the Unbelievers, no matter if he's being attacked or not.
I know you do not believe in God Mike, so why do you take the above to be statement of FACTS?
The statement "There is no compulsion in religion" holds true, as neither God has forced you to believe, or any of his followers should ever make it compulsory for you to believe.
I don't take them as facts, obviously. But I find it logically impossible that people who do (i.e. Muslims who presumably think the Qur'an is divinely revealed) can think 'there is no compulsion in religion'.
For example:
"Let the believers not make friends with infidels in preference of the faithful - he that does this has nothing to hope for from God - except in self-defence." (3:28)
"Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage..."(2:190-93)
If someone holds the above to be true, then how can there be 'no compulsion in religion'? Is it not a contradiction, and therefore necessitates the rejection of one of the premises?
You are quoting these verses completely out of context.
I am copying an answer to Miha, which should hopefully explain some of your questions.
The Qur’an says about the prohibition of murder, (…Take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus does He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.) (Al-An`am 6: 151) and Allah says in the Qur’an, (Nor take life, which Allah has made sacred, except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, We have given his heir authority (to demand Qisas or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the law)) (Al-Israa’ 17: 33). According to the Qur’an, killing any person without a just cause is as big a sin as killing the whole humanity and saving the life of one person is as good deed as saving the whole humanity. (See Al-Ma’idah 5: 32)
However, your question is valid, then how come the Qur’an says, (kill them wherever you find them…) as it is mentioned in Surah Al-Baqarah 2: 191 and Surah An-Nisaa’ 4: 89. The answer is simple and that is, you should read these verses in their textual and historical context. You should read the whole verse and it is better that you read few verses before and few after. Read the full text and see what is said:
(Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.) (Al-Baqarah 2: 190-194)
For your second quotation also read the full text:
(They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (Of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then Allah hath opened no way for you (to war against them). Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto; if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them; in their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them.?w (An-Nisaa’ 4: 89-91)
Now tell me honestly, do these verses give a free permission to kill any one anywhere? These verses were revealed by God to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), at the time when Muslims were attacked by the non-Muslims of Makkah on a regular basis. They were frightening the Muslim community of Madinah. One may say using the contemporary jargon that there were constant terrorist attacks on Madinah and in this situation Muslims were given permission to fight back the “terrorist”. These verses are not a permission for “terrorism” but they are a warning against the “terrorists.” But even in these warnings you can see how much restraint and care is emphasized.
It is important that we study the religious texts in their proper context. When these texts are not read in their proper textual and historical contexts they are manipulated and distorted. It is true that some Muslims manipulate these verses for their own goals. But this is not only with Islamic texts, it is also true with the texts of other religions. I can quote dozens of verses from the Bible which seem very violent, if taken out from their historical context. These Biblical texts have been used by many violent Jewish and Christian groups. Crusaders used them against Muslims and Jews. Nazis used them against Jews. Recently Serbian Christians used them against Bosnian Muslims. Zionists are using them regularly against Palestinians.
Let me mention just a few verses from the Old Testament and New Testament and tell me what do you say about them:
“When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. (Deutronomy 7:1-2)
“When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you… Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes (Deutronomy 20:10-17)
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, sparefor yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)
Even in the New Testament we read the following statement attributed to Jesus saying to his disciples:
“I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." (Luke 19:26-27)
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...h-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544502
Cheers Sults. This might be a useful exercise to discuss the Qur'an actually because, having read it, I have lots of questions that I want to ask believers. Maybe it's best to have a new thread though?
Okay, some thoughts and questions on this passage:
"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you..." - Does "fight" mean purely physical violence here?
"Such is the reward of those who reject faith." - This statement implies that the crime is a rejection of Islam, not merely the repression of Muslims by non-believers. The statement should read "such is the reward of those who oppress faith."
"And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression." - This statement seems fair enough doesn't it? No, because why is the phrase "faith in Allah" in there? Why is "faith in Allah" at all relevant if you're fighting only oppression and not unbelief itself? Why is a prevailing "faith in Allah" a condition at all? Surely "prevailing justice" is the only condition necessary if there is no compulsion in religion?
"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you..." - Does "fight" mean purely physical violence here?
"Such is the reward of those who reject faith." - This statement implies that the crime is a rejection of Islam, not merely the repression of Muslims by non-believers. The statement should read "such is the reward of those who oppress faith."
"And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression." - This statement seems fair enough doesn't it? No, because why is the phrase "faith in Allah" in there? Why is "faith in Allah" at all relevant if you're fighting only oppression and not unbelief itself? Why is a prevailing "faith in Allah" a condition at all? Surely "prevailing justice" is the only condition necessary if there is no compulsion in religion?
Sultan, I know one should always consider the historical context, the problem is that the text in Quran is not specified enough and, as you say, some Muslims can use it as a way of how to generally treat the ‘Unbelievers’ and justify it by exactly those verses.
The difference I see in the text in Deuteronomy is that YHWH does not give a general order to go and kill at will but it is limited to those seven nations who Israel was in conflict with. A further aspect is that the religion practiced by those nations included macabre rituals such as human sacrifice, temple prostitution incl. sodomy, etc. It might not be seen as a justification but at least it gives the context of an ‘evil and immoral’ group of people.
As I said before, the term Unbeliever in Quran can be stretched and used for encouraging violent actions against all non-Believers in the 21st century.
That Luke text btw, Jesus is referring to that character in the parable. “He (the ‘man of noble birth from a distant country’ from verse 12) replied…bring them here and kill them”. Jesus is not talking about himself there, that’s pretty obvious.
That's rubbish. I've seen quite a few videos where some retarded Serbian Orthodox priests are reading the Psalms of David and some random Bible verses from Revelation after which they would recite some Orthodox prayers, 'bless' the weapons and tanks and idiotically proclaim "God protects the Serbs". It is however extremely difficult to use any Bible verses for a call to 'fight the Unbelievers'.
The difference I see in the text in Deuteronomy is that YHWH does not give a general order to go and kill at will but it is limited to those seven nations who Israel was in conflict with. A further aspect is that the religion practiced by those nations included macabre rituals such as human sacrifice, temple prostitution incl. sodomy, etc. It might not be seen as a justification but at least it gives the context of an ‘evil and immoral’ group of people.
As I said before, the term Unbeliever in Quran can be stretched and used for encouraging violent actions against all non-Believers in the 21st century.
That Luke text btw, Jesus is referring to that character in the parable. “He (the ‘man of noble birth from a distant country’ from verse 12) replied…bring them here and kill them”. Jesus is not talking about himself there, that’s pretty obvious.
That's rubbish. I've seen quite a few videos where some retarded Serbian Orthodox priests are reading the Psalms of David and some random Bible verses from Revelation after which they would recite some Orthodox prayers, 'bless' the weapons and tanks and idiotically proclaim "God protects the Serbs". It is however extremely difficult to use any Bible verses for a call to 'fight the Unbelievers'.
Alex, you're from the states... I imagine an east coast person? What the feck were you doin' up at 5:00 am. Do you have a cocaine problem?
Because your posts, after a certain point become more and more jibberishy as the evening gets later. I can get you help for your problem, when you are ready. Just let me know... we care.
Jesus CHRIST!!! He didn't stop until nearly 7am eastern time...
Edit: Do you have a crack or methemphetamine problem? Nevermind the cocaine, this has got to be something bigger than a sniffing coke problem.
No. But obviously if you have to protect your country, family, and faith against invaders, oppression, terrorism then permission is there to fight a physical war as a last resort.
I need to study this verse in it's full context, before I can comment.
The Quran is addressed to Muslims only Mike, hence you will find many verses which address Muslims directly. I am at a loss what you mean with the rest of your question - apologies.
For the majority Islam is very clear, and a source of perfection. Just as Chritianity is to it's followers.
I am not going to waste my time on here trying to justify warped views of a minority.
Sorry I should have been more clear. Yes I know it's addressing Muslims, I'm disputing the value of the advice given though.
"And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah"
The proposition is to "fight them" until three conditions are met:
1) "there is no more tumult or oppression" - Fair enough
2) "there prevail justice" - Fair enough
3) "there prevails faith in Allah" - This is irrelevant if there is no compulsion in religion. Fighting should not be in the slightest bit dependent upon whether faith in Allah prevails.
Is that more clear? It's a contradiction.
That's quite a naive view. Indeed Mihalovic, a Christian, has stated in the past that he is unsure about much of the old testament and whether it is divinely inspired or more generally a man-made fiction.
And this is fair enough. A belief can allow for the fact that there is uncertainty and imperfection in the texts. Indeed there is internal contradiction in all religious texts I have read, and so, if you believe it is in some way true in a general sense, then you have to be comfortable with the fact that some of the detail is not.
The above verse was incomplete.
"But if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves." (Al-Baqarah: 190-194)
Sorry Sultan,
Mike has a valid point... if this is a verse of the average Quran, then it is open
to an aggressive interpretation.
Allow me to offer an example, as to why this sort of religion could be dangerous
. The United States of America is mostly a Christian. When 9.11 happened more
Americans had been open to violent verses of the Holy Bible (Mostly used by
Evangelicals and Southern Baptists, in their various but very similar forms).
Now when the Bible says to smite-smite-smite; I, as many other Americans see that as an outdated text that somehow survived the years, yet doesn’t apply to a civilized society (And I have heard many religious leaders explain Christian text, as such… recently). Now, the problem might be that the Muslim communities aren’t so quick to say, ‘Hey, hey, hey… wait one fecking second here!!! This text is hurting more of our people, than it is reflective of our spiritual path.’
There are many many people on the Caf that have enormous respect for you, Sultan… and I don’t offer this comment as an insult to you or as a kidding matter. But the literal interpretation of our religious texts need to be revised if we are to live in a world that sees peace and something that resembles harmony.
*Just for some clearity... The response to 9.11 might have been justified, but the invasion of Iraq is where more people stood up and said.. 'No, this has gone too far...'
Where in the Muslim religious community are they saying inmass, 'No, this has gone too far?'.
Rather than call it imperfection or fiction, I would much rather say within all religions there can be many opinions, that can be debated, and discussed.
Thanks Bob
To be fair, over a Billion people follow the very same Quran as say Bin Laden, and we are perfectly at peace with our fellow human beings. I hardly think if no religion existed, and we somehow changed some text in the Quran, no doubt we as human beings would still find excuses, reasons to be evil.
I suspect one of the problems might be the absence of a clear chronology in Quran. In the Bible there is a clear timeline that you can follow from ca 1500BC all the way to AD100 (roughly). The timeline makes it easier to explain how for example certain laws were valid only for a certain group of people at one certain time, lets say the Mosaic laws on sacrifices, applicable only to Israelites in the time between the Egypt exodus and the destruction of the temple. The timeline then ends with Jesus and his teachings which, many would argue, are representing the final command of how his followers (not limited to one nation) should behave from now on (no time limit either).
In the Quran, however, I dont think there is any chronology at all and most of the text sounds like some kind of a generally applicable, everlasting, perpetual law/command/statement. This 'problem' might leave room for much more variety in interpretation than what could ever be possible with the Old Testament.
Isn't there actually a difference in the Quran text (language, style) which was written before Mohamed went to Medina? Is it possible to differentiate between a pre- and post-Medina text?
Ok,
I was only attempting to offer a single way that might give people less a reason to blow each other up. The more reasons we try to pull off the table, the better off all humanity might be in the future.
Don't you think?
Fair enough Bob. I admire, and value your noble intention. However, the reality is there is no way religion can ever be off the table.
My point still stands. There is no need to even mention 'prevailing faith in Allah' when discussing valid reasons to resort to violence. The very mention of it in this context is extremely dangerous.
I'm not saying pull religion off the table. I am saying it might be time to edit our religions to reflect a more civilized society.
If the text does not apply and is used as a weapon by the few radicals...
Remove the weapons.
The aim and object of the Quran is to invite man to the right way of dealing with his Lord, himself, and the creation. The central theme is a call to the belief in God and the doing good deeds.
If these basic facts are kept in mind, all the Quran’s topics are simple, and all closely connected to its central theme.
There is no difference in text/language style in verses revealed in either Mecca, or Medina - same author.
Things have got so bad I no longer feel safe wearing a pillow case and burning a cross on my lawn
In all honesty I don't believe that we should give bigots a platform even though we are supposed to respect the right of free speech. I think that its right that the BNP are largely ignored by the media and that Nick Griffin is not given a chance to voice his view but I have to say extreme Islam and the likes of Anjem Choudary or his ilk shouldn't be allowed this access to the mainstream media, however if there is an atrocity like we have just seen this gobshite is usually wheeled out to spout his bile. Its still fascism, in the guise of religion.
In all honesty I don't believe that we should give bigots a platform even though we are supposed to respect the right of free speech. I think that its right that the BNP are largely ignored by the media and that Nick Griffin is not given a chance to voice his view but I have to say extreme Islam and the likes of Anjem Choudary or his ilk shouldn't be allowed this access to the mainstream media, however if there is an atrocity like we have just seen this gobshite is usually wheeled out to spout his bile. Its still fascism, in the guise of religion.
Every letter, word in the Quran is believed by Muslims to be directly from God. The very foundation of Islam would become non existent if any part of the Quran changed.
Where does this belief that every letter in the Qur'an is directly from god come from? The Qur'an itself? If so, then this is circular reasoning of the most blatant kind.
"The Qur'an is the inerrant word of god."
"Why?"
"Because it says so itself, and it must be right as it is the inerrant word of god."
Does this not strike you as odd?
This is probably why in Islam there will, sadly, never be a development of textual criticism.
Who else tells us it's the word of God?
Some professor or scientist?
Can anyone prove it's negation?
That is a very unfortunate position for Muslims. What you seem to be saying, is that Muslims will never find a way to eliminate the radicalism of their faith.
Sad, really...