Gharib
I want Khilafah back
been there done that, but didn't sell my house though, and i never suffered a tiny bit.
yeah they will be safe from hell. thats right.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Apostates of Islam
- Thread starter England my lionheart
- Start date
been there done that, but didn't sell my house though, and i never suffered a tiny bit.
yeah they will be safe from hell. thats right.
Alla Prima
Well-Known Member
So someone took your house and you didn't suffer. And now you think that anyone's house can be taken from them by coercion and they won't suffer. The story of Freddy Johnson getting a ride in a spaceship is more believable than that.
Oh come now. You can do better than that can't you? You really need to improve your spin. That was... silly.
AbuKhalid
Active Member
No its not. First off the existence of non Muslims in the Islamic lands proves your point about no safety as wrong. Secondly if you have compelled someone to do something then that means they have done it. This wasn't the case.
Obviously you have no knowledge of the issue concerned. The Jews where already being expelled and the reasons for this where to do with their betrayal of the Muslims and breaking of the treaty they signed. There was no compulsion to do anything except to leave. If a person enters Islam then there sins are forgiven and so this would have been the case with these Jews just as it was with any other people.
Do you not think they actually broke the treaty? Or are you completely unaware of any context of the issue about which you speak?
AbuKhalid
Active Member
They where compelled to leave. No one dispute that. Do you criticise others who do this such as the US today who compels those they see as terrorists and enemies to leave. Its exactly the same thing.
But compelling them to leave was noting to do with religion but with politics.
You can disagree with Islam without twisting things and it would make for better debate all round. If you are not twisting things then obviously you don't understand the word compel. If I told you to leave this forum for ever and you refused could anyone justifiably say I had in fact compelled you to leave?
kai
ragamuffin
His justification was that US troops were based in Saudi not occupying it just being there.and its support for the Saudi regime. it being an ally of Israel and its no fly zone over Iraq. every man and his dog has been involved in the middle east for centuries unfortunately its the Holy land for three religions who like to justify killing each other.
Last edited:
AbuKhalid
Active Member
Thats was one of the reasons, though by itself it Islamically justifies Jihad against the US. The fact that the US is supporting these regimes is preventing the return of the Islamic state. But Bin Laden talked about more than this such as the sanctions on Iraq which killed 500,000 children, Chechnya, Lebanon etc:
[FONT="]It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the ZionistCrusaders alliance and their collaborators to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in [/FONT][FONT="]Palestine[/FONT][FONT="] and [/FONT][FONT="]Iraq[/FONT][FONT="]. The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in [/FONT][FONT="]Lebanon[/FONT][FONT="] are still fresh in our memory. Massacres in [/FONT][FONT="]Tajakestan[/FONT][FONT="], [/FONT][FONT="]Burma[/FONT][FONT="], [/FONT][FONT="]Cashmere[/FONT][FONT="], [/FONT][FONT="]Assam[/FONT][FONT="], Philippine, Fatani, [/FONT][FONT="]Ogadin[/FONT][FONT="], [/FONT][FONT="]Somalia[/FONT][FONT="], Erithria, Chechnia and in BosniaHerzegovina took place, massacres that send shivers in the body and shake the conscience. All of this and the world watch and hear, and not only didn't respond to these atrocities, but also with a clear conspiracy between the [/FONT][FONT="]USA[/FONT][FONT="] and its' allies and under the cover of the iniquitous United Nations, the dispossessed people were even prevented from obtaining arms to defend themselves.[/FONT]
ProudMuslim
Active Member
I am not "Qur'an alone" Muslim, i am a Muslim who accepts the Qur'an as the prime source of Islam and follows accordingly but also respects and follows that Hadiths which explain the verses of the Qur'an, not the ones that have their set of laws.
I don't care if i am fragment of Muslim population (as you think), that does not intimidate me.
I think illiteracy and poverty has alot to do with the current condition of Muslims. In Islam education is mandatory for every Muslim (male and female) and there are many verses in the Qur'an and hadiths that encourage people to educate, think, reason and question so why is the illiteracy in the Arabic world is so high? Am i supposed to believe since the majority are like that then Islam did not encourage education? No, it does not work like that. In my opinion, when we the Muslims stop living in denial, acknowledge and face our problems that were created by us such as poverty, illiteracy and backwardness and while doing so stop pointing fingures to the other worlds looking for someone to blame. Accepting reality as it is will not solve the problem, accepting that the majority of us think this way or resist to change again will not take us anywhere. The funny part is that i find many non-Muslims in this forum alone will rather encourage the current situation to remain the same and will question the genuinity and valid reasoning of progressive Muslims "But your brothers in Afghanistan do this, and your sisters in Indonesia do that...". Don't you think we already know that the "Islamic world" needs urgent and complete reformation? But no it sounds as if you just want us to quit Islam all together and accept your definition of "freedom" and "honored life". But this tactis does not work either. We are proud genuine Muslims, we are thankful to God that we are Muslims and we find Islam the greatest comforter. So like i have said, if for now i am among the minority, who cares? Islam is not defined by its people, Islam is defined by its principles, values and teachings otherwise it will not attract millions of people who live in "free societies" in this century!
But also you need to understand you have not met the majority of Muslims to come up with such conclusion, i can accept that the majority of Muslims who get the attention of media are the ones i wished they didn't exist. Next time maybe if you have a question who not make a poll and see how the Muslims of this forum will respond.
kai
ragamuffin
so then you agree that Bin Laden was justified "Islamically" in his attack on 9/11 and that Muslims that denounced it were wrong?
kai
ragamuffin
Why is it another issue? its a simple question do you think it was justified Islamically ?if so:
what sources do you as a muslim ,think he has used to Justify 9/11 as a legitimate act of his Jihad? he has also issued a fatwa calling for the killing of americans soldiers or civilians any where at any time, what sources in Quran ,Sunnah etc do you as a muslim think he uses to justify this?
Can you reflect on his actions and say this is justified but that is not, has he left real Islam and redefined "his "Islam to suit whatever actions he decides are legitimate?
How do you view this letter to Bin Laden from Sheikh Salman al-Oadah
“Whoever as much as kills a sparrow in vain will find it crying before Allah on the Day of Judgment: ‘My Lord! That person killed me in vain. He did not kill me for needful sustenance.”
http://www.islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?cat_id=29&sub_cat_id=1521
Last edited:
Obviously i could not meet the majority of Muslims,but i do not need to do i because it's all in black and white from certified (sahih) literature that it is easy to see how death for Apostacy can be gleaned from it.
I don't care what God or God's worship,i don't care if you worship an inflatable Duck wearing a pin striped suit holding a feather duster,however i do care about Human rights and especially of the individual and i'm afraid your religion for whatever reason,misinterpretation,ignorance,illiteracy,poverty etc is the main perpetrator of Human rights abuse.
AbuKhalid
Active Member
Well first off it is a different issue from whether or not Jihad is allowed, as understanding that Jihad is not only allowed but Fard Ayn does not necessarily mean you agree with every action taken within the context of Jihad. So they are different issues in the same way as believing whether WW2 was justified and whether the use of the atomic bomb was justified are seperate issue. In saying that they are linked to a certain degree.
I think that it can justified Islamically and there are a number of evidences for this both from the Quran and the Sunnah.
To deal with the later part of your point first, I am not sure about the justification for killing civilians, however I will try to find out what sources they use to justify this. As for US soldiers I see no problem as they will target Muslims anywhere they like so why should the Mujahideen only fight them on the battlefields that they choose.
As to the first part, the sources used to justify it are the Quran, Sunnah, Fatwa from scholars and examples from Islamic history.
The US are guilty of terrible crimes against the Muslim Ummah, from the supporting and arming of Israel, attacks on Sudan, sanctions against Iraq and much more. This agression has resulted in the deaths of millions of people. The Quran allows retaliation for this:
... All Sacred Things are under the law of retaliation. Whoever then acts aggressively against you, retaliate, inflict injury upon the perpetrator according to what he has inflicted upon you...
(2:194)
And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient.
(16:126)
So its obvious that you can retaliate in the same way that you where attacked. If Muslim civilians are killed then the civilians of those who did this can also be targetted, however the number of them killed can't exceed the nmber of Muslims.
The above is the main ayat's on which 9/11 was justified. It is also justified on the basis that it is obligatory to remove the US from the Muslim lands and this would be the best way to do so by drawing them into a war which would ultimatly lead to their defeat. Al Qaeda have been saying since before 2001 that the US economy is its soft underbelly and the attacks where aimed to cost the most damage to that. Some would say they where aimed to cause maximum civilian casualties however I would disagree based on the time it was done at and also the fact that there would be better targets for causing as many deaths as possible.
Another factor is that Islam doesn't differentiate between military and civilians but rather between combatants and non combatants. A combatant is not only someone who physically participates in attacking the Muslims but one who supports it in any way such as financially and morally. Al Qaeda have argued that this includes the vast majority of US citizens as this majority pay taxes and vote for the Democrats or Republicans, both of who have waged the war on Islam.
Now it has been said that among those killed there would of course be some who don't take this stand and also some Muslims. While Islam would try to avoid such deaths they are allowed when those people cannot be differentiated from the larger body:
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.
Sahih Muslim: Book 019, Number 4321:
Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama: The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle."
Sahih Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256
You would have to give individual actions as there is alot of them. However even if they where all mistakes this would not mean that he has left Islam as this issue is one of Fiqh (Islamic Jurisprudence) and so the most that could be said of him is that he has taken the wrong position and that he is sinning.
This is out of context. The key word in the sentence is "in vain" and so for it to apply it would have to be argued that the attacks where carried out with no purposes and with no Sharia evidences to support them. Of course many of the Muslims who oppose 911 are happier to sit back and proclaim such statements rather than deal with the issues. The same methodology could be used to apply the above verse to the wars waged by the Prophet (SAW) and the early Muslims.
If people make arguments based on their emotions or their own personal interpretation of Islam rather than going to the sources then despite them being Muslims their argument is a personal one rather than a Muslim one.
-----------------
I have only touched on the arguments above as I don't have time to go into them in more detail at this time but they do go much deeper than this and there is many more evidences.
kai
ragamuffin
Alla Prima
Well-Known Member
Well it would appear then that only Muslims have the right to defend themselves against aggressors. This of course is in accord with their rejection of all other religions as having any value whatsoever. You see the very rejection of Islam is seen as an attack on Islam. Interesting how that works in their favor isn't it.
Alla Prima
Well-Known Member
What a glossy bit of propaganda. Tell this to CAIR who is attacking America's freedom of speech.
CAIR recently demanded the removal of the elected offcial Rep. Adam Hasner from the Florida House of Representatives for daring to appear with Geert Wilders in a private event. This is clearly an attack to facilitate soft Jihad.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/04/30/why-i-am-in-america-fighting-for-free-speech/
.lava
Veteran Member
soft jihad? how would you call this discussion that we all take a part? you know, Jihad means war. we did not invent it. so ys, if a foreign army with its guns go into an Islamic land of course local people would take that as a war sign. what would you do? for last decade i keep hearing some Western saying things like "Oh Muslims want to kill us all" they keep saying it over and over again and all we see is American soldiers in Iraq, 1.5 million Muslim deaths. all the accusations you make are actually are the things your people practice. but hey, they do not call it jihad. wow, so it is not bad, isn't it? you look within your nation, critize your own culture where young people, students take a gun once in a while and kill his own friends, you look at those cimes being commited instead of critizing people your people kill every single day. and if you had time explain me why are you in Middle East killing Muslims, ruining homes, breaking down our schools, killing our scientists, raping our women. while reality shows these facts of how cruel, violent, injust and inhumane you ARE, how dare you come tell us our religion our culture as if you know it better than we do? first explain and clean your own dirt. it is your people who's killing with no mercy, your people stealing future of unborn Muslim kids. which Muslim army is there in any non-Muslim nation trying to change your religion or system for God's sake? it is yours invading urs to change our culture and religion. you do not see that? well maybe someday you will, if not you then your child will see the truth.
.
.
AbuKhalid
Active Member
Well we do see Islam as the correct religion and we reject all others, hence the obvious - we are Muslims. But we do not so all other religions as of having no value. We believe they are wrong but still have values. For example if we seen everything in Christianity and Judaism as without value then we would see as without value their belief in Moses and Abraham. Of course this would be impossible for us showing that your comment is incorrect. As for only Muslims having the right of defence that is not the case at all. The hudaybiyyah pact was disregarded as a result of an attack on Muslim allies who where no Muslims themselves. The Islamic state came to their aid and it was this event which eventually lead to the opening of Makkah. Now you either know this and purposely ignore it as an example which invalids your point or else you are unaware of it and so speak without knowledge.
Mao had a good saying - "no investigation, no right to speak". I think that sometimes we all need to consider this excellent advice.
Plenty of Americans call for the removal of elected representative so why should CAIR be any different? After all it seems they consider themselves just as American as they are Muslim. I don't see how it is an attack on free speech. Wilders is a clear Islamaphobe who completely distorts Islam in order to attack it.
keithnurse
Active Member
My understanding of what makes a Muslim is the person says the shahada in front of witnesses. What evidence do you have that every person who leaves Islam was never a Muslim to begin with? If a person says the shahada you can't look into his/her heart and know if he is sincere. There may be some who never really believed in Islam to begin with but you said none of them believed in it to begin with. Where is you evidence? Can you look me in the eye and say with a straight face that it is not possible to sincerely believe in Islam, say the shahada and then later on change your mind and not believe in Islam any longer? Also, if Islam really is a good religion it would not be threatened by people leaving it. The fact that you said apostates must be put to death to protect Islam shows that Islam is not very strong because it can be threatened by something as trifling as a member leaving it. It also proves that Islam is not a genuine religion of peace because genuinely peaceful religions do not punish people just for leaving them.
Alla Prima
Well-Known Member
Alla Prima
Well-Known Member
Well the Koran sees it otherwise. All unbelievers are bound for hell-fire. I reject your comment.
005.010 And they who disbelieve and deny Our revelations, such are rightful owners of hell.
004.140 And indeed He has revealed to you in the Book that when you hear Allah's communications disbelieved in and mocked at do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them; surely Allah will gather together the hypocrites and the unbelievers all in hell.
010.004 To Him will be your return- of all of you. The promise of Allah is true and sure. It is He Who beginneth the process of creation, and repeateth it, that He may reward with justice those who believe and work righteousness; but those who reject Him will have draughts of boiling fluids, and a penalty grievous, because they did reject Him.
003.085 If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).
017.010 And that those who believe not in the Hereafter, for them We have prepared a painful doom.
007.036 But those who reject Our signs and treat them with arrogance,- they are companions of the Fire, to dwell therein (for ever).
Last edited: