Definitely not trolling, but two verses from Qur'an...why maybe Islam should be banned in America

[ChristineES]

Most do, perhaps..

In my experience, the majority of people have common sense. We who do have it should not be punished by losing our religious texts because of those with no common sense. Next, they'll go after crime fiction because people are copying the murders written in them. I heard of one young man who did a crime copied from what he saw in a movie.
On top of all that, banning things will make them even more popular.

 

[DawudTalut]

First I want to say that the purpose of this thread is not to attack Islam. It is not a personal attack on anyone who believes whatever he/she believes.

Peace be on you.
First I would like to say that you seems to be attacking and mocking Islam in your threads. It is your choice to say you are not doing so. Fine.

It is rather just factual information about why in a country like America where people have freedom of speech and freedom of expression (to certain extents,) maybe a religion that says that people should be killed for certain things should be banned in a country that lawfully gives people freedom of speech.

Now, the two verses that I would point out are Qur'an 5:33 & Qur'an 49:12.

The copy of the Yusuf Ali Qur'an translation (and one can research the merits of the Yusuf Ali translation on his/her own) that I am using could be a fake for all I know. Others can check a copy of the translation for themselves, but the copy that I am using says in chapter 5:33 that people who do the following should be killed (amongst others things:)

"wage war against Allah
And His Messenger, and strive
With might and main
For mischief through the land"

My copy uses the word "execute" in Qur'an 5:33.

If you had done some more finding and had read previous and next verses of (5:33) you would saved you from anxiety.

Please note the number will (5:34) from where I a quoting from [i.e. Ahmadiyya Muslims site: alislam.org/quran]:

[5:33] On account of this, We prescribed for the children of Israel that whosoever killed a person — unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the land — it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and whoso gave life to one, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind. And Our Messengers came to them with clear Signs, yet even after that, many of them commit excesses in the land.

[5:34] The reward of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to create disorder in the land is only this that they be slain or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on alternate sides, or they be expelled from the land. That shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a great punishment;


[5:35] Except those who repent before you have them in your power. So know that Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

1-First sacredness of human life is established.
2-Then an answer is prescribed to those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to create disorder in the land. Clearly its is not only religious matter only, it has state dimension on too (words: disorder in the land).
3- Yet door of mercy is open for corrected ones.
4- It is not general order, it is about high class bandits, dacoits and rebels who stand against state.

But one can see from this citation that maybe some Muslims do believe that some people who say certain things should be killed. In a country like America where people are lawfully granted freedom of speech to say this or that about a religion if they please, maybe a religion saying people should be killed for "waging war against Allah and His Messenger..." shouldn't be allowed.

The second verse that I would point out relates to an incident that I had with someone claiming to be a Muslim in which it appeared that this person was spying on me. I just consulted the same Qur'an translation that I discussed above, on the subject of spying and I found this verse (chapter 49:12:)

"O ye who believe!
Avoid suspicion as much
(As possible): for suspicion
In some cases is a sin:
And spy not on each other,
Nor speak ill of each other
Behind their backs. Would any
Of you like to eat
The flesh of his dead
Brother? Nay, ye would
Abhor it...But fear Allah.
For Allah is Oft-Returning,
Most Merciful."

One can see in this verse that Muslims are told in said translation "spy not on each other" as opposed to "spy not on anyone," so after my experience I don't know if Muslims believe that spying on non-Muslims is OK or what.

And to close, I want to say that I did hear a video of "Muslim" preacher Louis Farrakhan saying the following:

"...we don't give a damn about no White man law when you attack what we love."

Why anyone suspect you?

I don't see why such people couldn't go to their own country if they don't care about the laws of the land in which they live but at any rate, the video was reportedly from "Savior's Day 1993" part 1 or part 2, "Savior's Day" being an annual Nation of Islam convention; Mr. Farrakhan was speaking about the killing of Malcolm X when he made said statement, so one can see from Mr. Farrakhan's words that some Muslims don't have any regard for American law if people like Malcolm X say certain things about their faith.

THINK THAT THESE ARE POSSIBLE REASONS FOR ISLAM TO BE BANNED IN A COUNTRY LIKE AMERICA. Others can think about this.

Peace

No.....You have gross misunderstandings, true Islam teaches to love country and obey law of land; please find any Ahmadiyya Muslim in your area and sort out these basic questions.
===
Edited:
More in # 99

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Welp, way I see it, we can either start censoring all material for public fitness based on consistently applied rules, or we can admit that there is no frigging way we are about to censor all material for public fitness based on consistently applied rules.

Who should we trust to apply such censorship? The government? You? Meep!

 

[psychoslice]

Just like the bible there are also many verses on excuses to kill people, god was not a very nice man at all, especially in the old testament.

 

[Deidre]

Well a law saying certain people should be killed and people killing on the basis of that religious belief, if that's part of your religion, maybe freedom of religion in America needs to be redefined.

America is governed by secular law, not religious laws. If that ever changes, you'd have a point.

 

[Thief]

Technically, a religion that teaches to kill is ok. As long as its adherents don't actually enforce that teaching...

IMO actions are neither more nor less acceptable due to religious motivation. They should stand or fall on their own merits, including before the law.

The line was not well drawn in your post.

Technicality?....in a law of God?

If the proponents teach to kill....the followers will....follow.
So the law of the land must be considered.

We Americans would prefer freedom of religion and speech.
Some religions do not.

If you desire to live in a land where all are free to speak of God as they see fit....
then teaching to kill....to subdue and silence....
is not going to work.

So which law were you holding as dominant?

 

[LuisDantas]

The line was not well drawn in your post.

Technicality?....in a law of God?

If the proponents teach to kill....the followers will....follow.
So the law of the land must be considered.

Laws, whatever their origin, are worth only as much as people decide to make them worth.

It is not even truly conceivable that they could have any other value.

We Americans would prefer freedom of religion and speech.
Some religions do not.

If you desire to live in a land where all are free to speak of God as they see fit....
then teaching to kill....to subdue and silence....
is not going to work.

Do you know of a better alternative?

So which law were you holding as dominant?

None, of course. Laws are nothing more than tools. Dominance ill suits them.

 

[Tiapan]

In my opinion all religions are belief in fantasy, and that's fine, but when ever someone takes these fairy stories seriously and becomes violent then they should be institutionalised and fed chlorpromazine. I do note while all religions produce their share of idiot violent radicals those adhering to Islam seem to win the gold medal for misery and murder in viciousness and quantity. As far as the OP is concerned Islam does not allow free speech on pain of death, while free speech is the axiomatic pillar of western culture so I see unavoidable continuous conflict. Since the whole middle east and half of Africa (mostly islamic states) are total basket cases, I'll stick with the west.

Cheers

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

The religion should be allowed in a free country for 3 basic reasons:

1. If it's not allowed, then we no longer live in a "free" country.
2. No idea or ideology or belief was conquered by legal banning of the same. IN fact, such a move martyrs the followers of that ideology and belief, giving it more strength an momentum.
3. The only way to conquer bad ideas is with better ideas.

 

[FearGod]

First I want to say that the purpose of this thread is not to attack Islam. It is not a personal attack on anyone who believes whatever he/she believes. It is rather just factual information about why in a country like America where people have freedom of speech and freedom of expression (to certain extents,) maybe a religion that says that people should be killed for certain things should be banned in a country that lawfully gives people freedom of speech.

Now, the two verses that I would point out are Qur'an 5:33 & Qur'an 49:12.

The copy of the Yusuf Ali Qur'an translation (and one can research the merits of the Yusuf Ali translation on his/her own) that I am using could be a fake for all I know. Others can check a copy of the translation for themselves, but the copy that I am using says in chapter 5:33 that people who do the following should be killed (amongst others things:)

"wage war against Allah
And His Messenger, and strive
With might and main
For mischief through the land"

My copy uses the word "execute" in Qur'an 5:33. But one can see from this citation that maybe some Muslims do believe that some people who say certain things should be killed. In a country like America where people are lawfully granted freedom of speech to say this or that about a religion if they please, maybe a religion saying people should be killed for "waging war against Allah and His Messenger..." shouldn't be allowed.

The second verse that I would point out relates to an incident that I had with someone claiming to be a Muslim in which it appeared that this person was spying on me. I just consulted the same Qur'an translation that I discussed above, on the subject of spying and I found this verse (chapter 49:12:)

"O ye who believe!
Avoid suspicion as much
(As possible): for suspicion
In some cases is a sin:
And spy not on each other,
Nor speak ill of each other
Behind their backs. Would any
Of you like to eat
The flesh of his dead
Brother? Nay, ye would
Abhor it...But fear Allah.
For Allah is Oft-Returning,
Most Merciful."

One can see in this verse that Muslims are told in said translation "spy not on each other" as opposed to "spy not on anyone," so after my experience I don't know if Muslims believe that spying on non-Muslims is OK or what.

And to close, I want to say that I did hear a video of "Muslim" preacher Louis Farrakhan saying the following:

"...we don't give a damn about no White man law when you attack what we love."

I don't see why such people couldn't go to their own country if they don't care about the laws of the land in which they live but at any rate, the video was reportedly from "Savior's Day 1993" part 1 or part 2, "Savior's Day" being an annual Nation of Islam convention; Mr. Farrakhan was speaking about the killing of Malcolm X when he made said statement, so one can see from Mr. Farrakhan's words that some Muslims don't have any regard for American law if people like Malcolm X say certain things about their faith.

I THINK THAT THESE ARE POSSIBLE REASONS FOR ISLAM TO BE BANNED IN A COUNTRY LIKE AMERICA. Others can think about this.

Peace

If Muslims were fighting for the sake of God, then the Americans who killed innocents in Iraq were fighting for the sake of whom.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Quran 5:33 says:
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment"

It is too complicated for me to comment on, but do you know what does waging war against God and His Prophet and living an unjust corrupted life mean? Murdering the innocent, raping children, brutal torturing, inhumane human experimenting and genocide are all included. If you see those crimes are nothing to retaliate against... !!!

Anyways, it suggests a punishment and punishments are decided to be followed by the authorities. Just don't follow the verse and that's it.

I know it is highly debatable and really harsh. Even I personally would not follow that verse literally. But to ban Islam for it?

Quran 49:12 says:
"O you who have believed, avoid much [negative] assumption. Indeed, some assumption is sin. And do not spy or backbite each other. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his brother when dead? You would detest it. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Accepting of repentance and Merciful."

First of all, it says believers, not Muslims. Second, let the others just read the translation above and decide if it is really even a half good reason to ban a whole religion? I mean, come on man, read and understand the message there. It also does not teach to spy and backbite non believers, does it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well I'm not any religion, Ma'am...others could study the BIble and whatever it does or doesn't tell others to do...my point is about killing people for saying this or that in a country that practices freedom of speech. Does the Bible instruct adherents to kill others over their practice of free speech?

The Bible is actually far more violent than the Koran. Genocide, bears mauling boys to death, slavery, beheadings, impalement, ripping the unborn from the womb...I have yet to see where "loving and merciful" apply to their God.

 

[Marisa]

Lest we not forget, as the OP seems to want to do, that christianity has also experienced a Dark Ages, one in which Islam at the time was making great strides in mathematics and medical science. One wonders if muslims at the time looked across the globe and wondered if those barbaric christians should be "allowed" their belief that illness was brought about by demonic possession and if you could but drain enough blood before the patient died he could be cured. I mean it would be concern for safety, right? Small wonder, with the decades of political turmoil visited upon the middle east that a cultural regression should ensue. An argument could be made that here in the US at least, some christians strive to throw us back into a dark ages instead of trudging forth to find resolutions to the modern problems technological advances have created.

And last, but not least, cries of "go home" should be met with realization that not all who live here were born somewhere else. There are many who reside in the US who receive the cry of "go home" by someone who doesn't like another persons: skin color, accent, political affiliation, or religious persuasion. One of the wonderful things that being a "melting pot" brings forth is cultural diversity. It should be reveled in and explored with an open mind, not feared and legislated into criminality.

 

[LuisDantas]

If Muslims were fighting for the sake of God, then the Americans who killed innocents in Iraq were fighting for the sake of whom.

GWB made a point of invoking the name of God while arraying them, as I remember it.

Wars among people who believe in God and fear him are depressingly common in human history, you know.

 

[FearGod]

GWB made a point of invoking the name of God while arraying them, as I remember it.

Wars among people who believe in God and fear him are depressingly common in human history, you know.

And the American fighting in the middle east, are they fearing God or slaves for the oil and arm dealers.
Why soldiers are ordered to fight in foreign lands ?
Did Iraq fight the west ?
Did Syria fight the west ?
Did Yemen fight the west ?

 

[LuisDantas]

And the American fighting in the middle east, are they fearing God or slaves for the oil and arm dealers.

Both, or neither, or one or the other. I expect a considerable degree of variation there.

But for the most part US soldiers seem to be sincere Christians who believe in God, although they do not necessarily fear Him.

Why soldiers are ordered to fight in foreign lands ?

Because their leaders or perhaps the people of their lands have been convinced that there is something to be gained from such fighting. Often it is little more than a pride thing. but the reasons will vary.

Did Iraq fight the west ?

Not really, far as I know.

Did Syria fight the west ?

Ditto: I don't think it ever did.

Did Yemen fight the west ?

Same answer.

For the record, I don't support military actions in the Middle East. I don't think I ever did.

 

[Marisa]

Because their leaders or perhaps the people of their lands have been convinced that there is something to be gained from such fighting. Often it is little more than a pride thing. but the reasons will vary.

I've seen heresay that Bush engaged the US in the wars he did to "reignite" the Crusades, and that he believed the christian god instructed him to do so. I've no doubt that Bush is a devout believer, but I think his ambitions in the ME are far more financially based than religiously based. But, when you believe that you and your god are on the same page, there doesn't seem to be any limit to how much destruction can be visited upon those we see as "less than".

Here in the US many of us seem to have cultivated the notion that if democracy is advanced, it's because we spread it. Many of us seem ignorant of just how many countries on this planet boast some form of democracy and have this thing called "freedom" we think we invented. It's gone far beyond patriotism and has morphed into exceptionalism and nationalism, and IMO, is far more destructive to not just foreign sovereign nations, but to our own as well. We make new enemies every day, and the best we can seem to come up with is "if you're not with us, you're against us".

 

[LuisDantas]

I've seen heresay that Bush engaged the US in the wars he did to "reignite" the Crusades, and that he believed the christian god instructed him to do so. I've no doubt that Bush is a devout believer, but I think his ambitions in the ME are far more financially based than religiously based. But, when you believe that you and your god are on the same page, there doesn't seem to be any limit to how much destruction can be visited upon those we see as "less than".

You tell me!

I think referencing the Crusades some eight centuries after the fact is less than enlightening, though. One would be hard pressed to even guess what GWB would understand the meaning and purpose of the Crusades to be, and I suspect that whoever thought of that as his goal has a very different understanding anyway.

Attempting to define that in a more impartial way is if anything even harder, of course. The Crusades were a complex, often self-destructing event that resulted from a complex geohistorical reality that is simply not at all similar to the current one.

It seems to me that comparing events of the 20th and 21st century with them is simply not at all enlightening in and of itself. A whole lot of context would need to be raised for it to clarify anything at all.

Here in the US many of us seem to have cultivated the notion that if democracy is advanced, it's because we spread it. Many of us seem ignorant of just how many countries on this planet boast some form of democracy and have this thing called "freedom" we think we invented. It's gone far beyond patriotism and has morphed into exceptionalism and nationalism, and IMO, is far more destructive to not just foreign sovereign nations, but to our own as well. We make new enemies every day, and the best we can seem to come up with is "if you're not with us, you're against us".

I wish I could disagree. But you are spot on, far as I can tell. Worse still, the current mindset among many Americans seems to be, incredibly enough, that sending troops or, even worse, bomber airplanes abroad is in some mysterious sense constructive to the cause of freedom and democracy.

Myself, I think that bullying is just not conducive to peace, no matter how murderous, expensive and high-tech it might be.

 

[DawudTalut]

@ "Born Eunuch", as you have mentioned the issue of regard of law of land:

IN CONTINUATION OF # 82

Islam’s Teachings of Loyalty and Love for One’s Nation

[Ahmadiyya Muslim Khalifah's lecture at Military Headquarters Koblenz, Germany, 2012]

@ PAGE 23 @ https://www.alislam.org/library/books/World-Crisis-and-Pathway-to-Peace.pdf

 

[Thief]

Laws, whatever their origin, are worth only as much as people decide to make them worth.

It is not even truly conceivable that they could have any other value.




Do you know of a better alternative?




None, of course. Laws are nothing more than tools. Dominance ill suits them.

I'm sorry.....each of the above was hardly firm in conviction or decision.

Law is important.
Even in small collections of people, some reserve is dealt.

So you don't believe in God....as a person....
You are not expecting to answer to anyone Greater.

That takes your discussion down to social efforts.....
but you say 'dominance ill suits them'......so no one is in charge.

Are you then to favor Chaos?