Hall of FameHall of Fame  Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp  chatChat
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin
InterReligious Dialogue
 Whyislam.org Forums : General : InterReligious Dialogue  
Message Icon Topic: Continuation of Conversation With Damo Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 2
Author Message
Niblo  
Sophmore Member
Sophmore Member

Religion: Islam(Muslim)
Posts: 168
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote Niblo Replybullet Posted: 26 December 2018 at 4:36am
Hello Damo.

You've been absent from this site for quite a while. I hope that all is well.

Edited by Niblo - 17 January 2019 at 7:43am
'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.'(Alī ibn Abī Tālib‎)
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
Damo808  
Mureed
Mureed

Religion: Christian(Catholic)
Posts: 4240
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote Damo808 Replybullet Posted: 09 January 2019 at 6:44am

Originally posted by Niblo

Hello Damp.

You've been absent from this site for quite a while. I hope that all is well.


Great Niblo. Hope you are too.


Originally posted by Niblo


Hi Damo.

To continue our conversation in the, now closed down, topic 'Petra is Mecca':

The Former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Bin Baz (an ardent Wahhabi) declared that suicide attacks are ‘evil, sinful, immoral, corrupt, oppressive and hostile’; and that those responsible for such crimes do not believe in Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) and the Last Day ‘with correct conviction.’ In his opinion, such people are: ‘Indulged in the lewdness of the spirit, corruption of the self and envy.’ (referenced in ‘ISIS - DAESH a Catastrophe and a Tribulation’; by Syed Hussain bin Osman Madani, and reviewed by Shaykh Abdullah Taha Madani).



Syed Madani writes:

‘Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Ramzan Al-Hajari (may Allah preserve him), Lecturer by Royal Commission Al-Jubail, Eastern Province Saudi Arabia said that Daesh and Nusrah Front are not upon truth.

‘He further said that there are no ‘Ulama (scholars) with this organisation, rather all of them are imprudent and foolish…………a bloodthirsty and savage organisation, which is not only a danger for Muslims, but rather the whole humanity. Furthermore, he said that to warn against the perpetuators of mischief and tribulations and to disgrace them is an extremely high level of Jihad.’ (Op. cit.).

According to Al-Hajari, approximately one thousand and fifty Indian scholars have issued a Fatwa (a religious ruling) stating that ISIS is un-Islamic; and that therefore: ‘The scholars from all around the world should disseminate awareness against this terrorist organisation by any possible means.’ This Fatwa was signed by one thousand and seventy religious organisations, and copies sent to fifty countries.

Madani goes on:

‘After having known the opinion of the Indian scholars towards Daesh, it is appropriate to get ourselves acquainted with what the Muslim leadership has to say about it too. The senior Barrister, Janab Asad-ud-Deen Owaisi, President of AIMIM, and Member of Parliament in India, gave this message to 180 million Muslims that Daesh are Khawaarij, who are dogs of Hellfire, adulterers, murderers and worthy of condemnation. He also advised the youth to remain close with the ‘Ulama, and prevent themselves from visiting the terrorist websites, and consider seeking knowledge, eradication of poverty and serving one’s parents to be Jihad in the current times.

‘Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh ‘Abdul ‘Azeez Aal Ash-Sheikh (may Allah preserve him) said that organisations like Al-Qaeda and Daesh are Khawaarij, amongst whom extremism, severity, rigidness, mischief and terrorism are found. Moreover, they are the first enemies of Islam, who slaughter the Muslims to begin with. Thus, these organisations have nothing to do with Islam. In fact they are outside the Deen.’ (Op. cit.).

Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi (a Sufi) has also issued a lengthy Fatwa against ISIS, declaring them to be Khawarij and, as such, outside the fold of Islam. According to the Shaykh, Muslims have a duty to fight ISIS, and to destroy them. (see his book: ‘Refuting ISIS’). Muslims are attempting to do just that.


    Ohh i remember the denunciations of ISIS (not individually) which came, but most importantly what i remember most is when they came and what prompted them, for it wasn't the plight of Yazidi or Christian families being butchered separated and the women sold like cattle as exemplified by your prophet. . Most notably in 2014 when ISIS first became prominent most notably for the rapidity of their rise and by the ruthlessness they treated non-Muslims within predominantly Muslim strongholds.   There was a very noticeable long silence in the Muslim world that didn't go un-noticed. Demonstrations ? None apart from perhaps maybe a scant few moderate voices.
That only seemed to change when the Muslim world then realized - and most importantly the people who by and large who have dictated the masses realized,that ISIS posed a threat to them as well as the people they rule too. The world must not forget how such mass condemnation came about. That is what is telling here.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2725475/Why-aren-t-British-Muslims-condemning-maniacs-killing-Islam-From-leading-Muslim-voice-troubling-question.html

https://guardianlv.com/2014/08/muslim-silence-amid-isis-atrocities/





Originally posted by Niblo

Why is it that certain people (regardless of their ethnic origins, or religious affiliations) can kill so readily (and eagerly)? Noam Chomsky and Andre Vltchek suggest an answer:

‘George Orwell had a term for it: “unpeople.” The world is divided into people like us, and unpeople – everyone else who do not matter. Orwell was talking about a future totalitarian society, but it applies quite well to us. There is a fine young British diplomatic historian, Mark Curtis, who uses the term unpeople in his study of the post-World War II depredations of the British Empire. We are not concerned with what happens to them.’ (‘On Western Terrorism - New Edition: From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare’).



Islam rejects utterly the notion that certain individuals, or nations, are ‘unpeople’. Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) created human beings as equals, who are to be distinguished from each other only on the basis of their faith and piety. He tells us:

‘People, We created you all from a single man and a single woman, and made you into races and tribes so that you should know one another. In Allāh’s eyes, the most honoured of you are the ones most mindful of Him: Allāh is all knowing, all aware.’ (Al-Hujurat: 13).


Do you honestly expect me to believe that when a Muslim scholar is explaining this verse to Muslims he is inclusive of those who attribute 'shirk' to Allah ?
Well, be honest if i am a Muslim how do I read that ?
Am i mindful of Him if i believe He is '3 gods' ?
That He has son ?
I could add a good few etc's in there. But you see my point. I'm not mindful of God if i attribute shirk to Him is the logic here and why i'd otherwise be called the 'worst of creatures', and from the devil etc etc..

A Muslim is going to view himself and other Muslims as 'honoured' above non Muslims therefore unequal due to the 'shirk' non Muslims attribute to Him. Hence the continued slaughter in the darkness of women and children by Mohammed in the raid to which was given no justification beyond that by their status deserved it, an event you continually downplay and in my view cartwheel around. But just an opinion.       


Originally posted by Niblo

Why do Islamist extremists defy the Qur’an?

The principal reason is evidenced in a Channel 4 documentary on the Qur’an; a documentary I recorded several years ago. At one point, the presenter introduces Sheikh Khalid Tafesh, at that time the elected representative of Hamas in Bethlehem; with (according to the presenter) a third of his votes coming from Christian Palestinians.

When reminded that that suicide is expressly forbidden in the Qur’an the Sheikh answers: ‘That’s true. God says “do not kill yourself, and do not bring misery on yourself”, so we are forbidden from attempting suicide.’

He then says: ‘If we had the same weapons as the enemy we would not resort to this method, but we don’t, so it’s our only option.’

His argument is straightforward: When faced with overwhelming power and weaponry Muslims are entitled to set the Exalted’s prohibitions on aggressive and unrestrained warfare aside; and to act in any way they see fit.

El Fadl writes: ‘Since they (the terrorists) are not strong enough to take on the Western armed military, they must achieve victory by any means necessary. And, according to puritans, waging attacks against the civilian nationals of countries that occupy Muslim lands will eventually bring these countries to their knees and teach them not to violate the sanctity of or attempt to dominate Muslim nations.’ (‘The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists’).




In short, Islamist extremists believe they are justified in violating the prohibitions against starting – or participating in – a war of aggression; against harming, in any way, non-combatants, women, children, the old, the sick and those enemy combatants who no longer wish to fight, or who are prisoners of war; as well as the prohibitions against destroying property; homes; churches; synagogues; mosques; crops or livestock; and the prohibition against suicide; because (as far as they are concerned) there is no other way to win peace…their version of peace.




I once asked on here why Muhammad attacked groups who before-hand had no contact with Islam in any form previously. I was told that it was due religious association i.e being merely the same religion of others who had been enemy combatants of Muhammad and therefore a threat to Islam.

This was the steam on which Islam conquered others up until the end of the Ottoman empire. Had they the military technology. Islam would have violently conquered the world.




Originally posted by Niblo


El Fadl writes:

‘What type of arrogance permits a people to name themselves God’s soldiers and then usurp His authority? What type of arrogance empowers a people to inject their insecurities and hatred into the Book of God, and then fancy themselves the divine protectors? Of all the sins of this world, what can be more revolting than usurping God’s Word, and then misrepresenting God’s meticulous Speech?’ (‘The Search for Beauty in Islam: A Conference of the Books’).

In a foreword to the monograph ‘Islamic Rulings on Warfare’; produced in 2004 by Lieutenant Commander Youssef Aboul-Enein (US Navy Medical Service Corps) and Dr. Sherifa Zuhur (Visiting Research Professor of National Security Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College) Douglas Lovecraft - Director of the Strategic Studies Institute - writes:

‘To win that ideological war (against Islamic radicalism and anti-American sentiment) we must understand the sources of both Islamic radicalism and liberalism. We need to comprehend more thoroughly the ways in which militants misinterpret and pervert Islamic scripture. (‘Islamic’ terror groups have) produced (their) own spokespersons who attempt to provide religious legitimacy to the nihilism they preach. Many frequently quote from the Quran and ahadith (the Prophet Muhammad’s sayings and deeds) in a biased manner to draw justification for their cause.

‘The authors have found that proper use of Islamic scripture actually discredits the tactics of al-Qaeda and other jihadist organisations.’

Everything that Lovecraft says about ‘Islamic’ terror groups can be applied equally well to those who rage against Islam in general, and its Prophet in particular. These people also quote from the Quran and ʼaḥādīth in a biased manner to draw justification for their cause.

Julia Ebner, an Austrian journalist, and researcher at the London-based Institute for Strategic Dialogue, writes:

‘Although it may seem self-evident, it is important to emphasise that most Muslims are not Islamists and most Islamists are not jihadists. This crucial distinction is often ignored by far-right sympathisers, who use the terms Islam, Islamism and jihadism interchangeably to propagate the view that Islam is inherently violent.

‘Far-right and Islamist extremist incidents correlate in terms of their timing, and areas with a strong far-right presence are more likely to breed Islamist extremists and vice versa. One side tends to provoke a retaliatory reaction from the other. The extremes thus escalate, resulting in a spiralling violence effect. With those on each side feeling the need to defend themselves from the offences of the other side, their predictions become a self-fulfilling prophecy: an increasing number of Muslims are lured into embracing Islamist views and a rising number of non-Muslims turn to far-right parties.

‘Looking at the statistics, the Global Database on Terrorism (GDT) records domestic, transnational and international acts of terrorism that occur anywhere across the world. It contains data on over 150,000 terrorist attacks, making it the world’s most comprehensive unclassified database on terrorism incidents. An analysis of this data suggests that far-right extremist violence correlates with Islamist extremist attacks. Indeed, a closer look at the incidents that occurred in the period between January 2012 and September 2016 across the US, Australia, the UK, France and Germany, reveals that far-right and Islamist terrorist attacks tend to spike at the same time.

‘To conclude, a symbiotic relationship between far-right and Islamist extremists occurs on at least two levels: (1) as their stories are two sides of the same coin, they reinforce each other; and (2) as their actions provoke each other into more radical retaliation, they turn each other’s predictions into self-fulfilling prophecies.’ (‘The Rage: The Vicious Circle of Islamist and Far-Right Extremism’).


Obviously far right extremism correlates with Islamism as they are opposed to each other. They take it upon themselves to be the front line against each other in multicultural societies which tolerate them. But as i said, how many airports in the world are really looking out for the next right wing aeroplane highjacker or what city's security budget deals more with far right extremism over and above Islamic terrorism ?

Both are cancerous to society but one is drastically more problematic and dangerous than the other. I should also state here. Not all people who are opposed to Islam belong to the extreme right wing.

Originally posted by Niblo

It appears that far-right and Islamist extremists are incapable of making a fair and reasonable assessment of what the Qur’an has to say – based on a thorough examination of the text itself; and of the words of Islamic scholars – because such an assessment cannot exist in their particular world. They begin with the assumption that whatever they believe simply has to be true; and that any argument to the contrary must be a lie, or else the product of some delusion. No evidence, no logic, no appeal to reason can persuade them otherwise. They dwell in their own echo chambers; two sides of the same worthless currency.



The extreme right as misguided and divided as they are...doesn't hold any claim to a divinely led leader who they follow by example is the difference.
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
Niblo  
Sophmore Member
Sophmore Member

Religion: Islam(Muslim)
Posts: 168
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote Niblo Replybullet Posted: 17 January 2019 at 7:38am
Hello Damo.

Thanks for your reply. Nice to see that you’re OK.

Your post raises three scenarios:

First:

You have spent the past eleven weeks (you last posted on the 16th Oct) studying the Qur’an, and have discovered several verses confirming your original allegation; namely, that it supports terrorism. However, motivated by a worthy compassion, and a desire not to embarrass this old man, you have elected to say absolutely nothing at all about them.

Second:

You have spent the last eleven weeks studying the Qur’an, and have found nothing to confirm your original allegation; namely, that it supports terrorism. However, motivated by an unworthy refusal to admit that you are wrong, you have elected to rehash previous posts in the hope that no one will notice the lie.

Third:

You couldn’t care less what the Qur’an has to say; your sole desire is to spew anti-Islamic propaganda, and our 'conversation’ is merely your ‘Means of the Moment.’


Others can decide which of these scenarios is closest to the truth.

Have a nice day.


Edited by Niblo - 18 January 2019 at 2:03am
'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.'(Alī ibn Abī Tālib‎)
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
Damo808  
Mureed
Mureed

Religion: Christian(Catholic)
Posts: 4240
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote Damo808 Replybullet Posted: 18 January 2019 at 6:19pm
Hi Niblo.

Your presenting a completely semantic argument.


You cited Sahih, which is clearly irrelevant without the Quran. And I've cited what happens within it to which you just have no real answer. Because it presents contradiction ONLY if not for that the answer is staring everyone in the face via the vile indiscriminate character assassination of entire groups of people. Most notably reserved at the time to justify the slaughter of those with considerable bounty to steal, and those who merely stood geographically in the way of his partly slave trade funded growing empire. When one accepts the Quran as divine scripture they then accept that those who reject/oppose Muhammad's teachings are open to be to be interpreted in the most wildly varying degrees by individual Muslims but always as the lesser human being. Therefore The Quran, which is the seed of Islam is not conducive to peace in multicultural society and is why Islamic countries which neighbor non Islamic countries usually are fraught with tensions. Islam has proven repeatedly to divide society, and is not conducive to multicultural society.
This is why its ingenuous when you cite (Al-Hujurat: 13) above as proof of equality towards all men as central to islam when the verse specifically mentions that those 'Most honoured are those most mindful' which clearly from the Muslim perspective can ONLY be Muslims.

So for the last time.. its the pervasive corrosive dehuminasing way non Muslims are potrayed in the Quran which sets the stage for events in the hadeeth which need no explanation for their 'contradiction'. Which in turn reflects an example set for all time and set by a man believed to be divinely guided.

Good day    


out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
Niblo  
Sophmore Member
Sophmore Member

Religion: Islam(Muslim)
Posts: 168
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote Niblo Replybullet Posted: Yesterday at 10:15am
Originally posted by Damo808

Hi Niblo.

Your presenting a completely semantic argument.


You cited Sahih, which is clearly irrelevant without the Quran. And I've cited what happens within it to which you just have no real answer. Because it presents contradiction ONLY if not for that the answer is staring everyone in the face via the vile indiscriminate character assassination of entire groups of people. Most notably reserved at the time to justify the slaughter of those with considerable bounty to steal, and those who merely stood geographically in the way of his partly slave trade funded growing empire. When one accepts the Quran as divine scripture they then accept that those who reject/oppose Muhammad's teachings are open to be to be interpreted in the most wildly varying degrees by individual Muslims but always as the lesser human being. Therefore The Quran, which is the seed of Islam is not conducive to peace in multicultural society and is why Islamic countries which neighbor non Islamic countries usually are fraught with tensions. Islam has proven repeatedly to divide society, and is not conducive to multicultural society.
This is why its ingenuous when you cite (Al-Hujurat: 13) above as proof of equality towards all men as central to islam when the verse specifically mentions that those 'Most honoured are those most mindful' which clearly from the Muslim perspective can ONLY be Muslims.

So for the last time.. its the pervasive corrosive dehuminasing way non Muslims are potrayed in the Quran which sets the stage for events in the hadeeth which need no explanation for their 'contradiction'. Which in turn reflects an example set for all time and set by a man believed to be divinely guided.

Good day    





Scenario number three it is, then!
'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.'(Alī ibn Abī Tālib‎)
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 2
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums version 8.03
Copyright ©2001-2006 Web Wiz Guide
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed by members of the Whyislam Forum do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the Whyislam Team, or any of its subsidiaries, or parent organizations.