Paris terrorists not Practicing Muslims at all

[FearGod]

No you mentioned the prophecy not I. The prophecy according to you is the conquest of various places proves the legitimacy of IS. The conquest are your words not mine, your prophecy not mine. Try again son.

It proves the prophecy, i didn't say legitimacy, but it's you who have some difficulties in understanding, you're
always repeating the same words.

Time for an lesson in English son. To liberate a place mean that is not under current control by those liberating it. Since IS would require military acts, Israeli is not going to give up the place willingly, this would mean it was conquered hence conquest.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conquered

Hence the conquest according to your prophecy will legitimatize IS regardless of how many Muslim openly express that IS does not follow Islam. Hence IS would be following true IS not those Muslim against it. This is nothing more than Islamic fatalism

It's a lesson and not an lesson, the rest is rubbish

 

[Shusha]

And you're converting to Judaism, right
Do you think all verses in the Torah are moral ?

Its a difficult question for any of us who have scriptures that our modern eyes find problematic. I think a number of things.

1. The scriptures are products of their times and the societies in which they were developed, compiled and recorded.
2. Literalism is foolish.
3. Torah must be understood as a whole and not on individual verses without context and one must always ask, "What did G-d Intend?" and "Why was it written this way?"
4. Morality is not determined by a capricious god but is a system which is constructed for the benefit of humankind.

Now, enough about me and Judaism. Why don't you tackle these questions from the perspective of Islam? Do you think all of the verses in the Qu'ran are moral? What makes them moral? Do you think a Caliphate which fulfills the prophecies will be moral? Do you think its morality will be apparent from the beginning of the Caliphate?

 

[FearGod]

Its a difficult question for any of us who have scriptures that our modern eyes find problematic. I think a number of things.

1. The scriptures are products of their times and the societies in which they were developed, compiled and recorded.
2. Literalism is foolish.
3. Torah must be understood as a whole and not on individual verses without context and one must always ask, "What did G-d Intend?" and "Why was it written this way?"
4. Morality is not determined by a capricious god but is a system which is constructed for the benefit of humankind.

Now, enough about me and Judaism. Why don't you tackle these questions from the perspective of Islam? Do you think all of the verses in the Qu'ran are moral? What makes them moral? Do you think a Caliphate which fulfills the prophecies will be moral? Do you think its morality will be apparent from the beginning of the Caliphate?

We can't pick up, it's whether to take it or to leave it, for example we know that God controls everything in our universe,
do you think it's moral that he makes us fighting each others ? do you think it's moral that he permits some children to die
by cancers and other diseases ? do you think it's moral that many will die due to disasters such as earthquakes ?

If you believe all such things are amoral then why you're searching for God or thinking that reaching Rome
is amoral whereas the other things allowed by God are moral?

 

[Shusha]

We can't pick up, it's whether to take it or to leave it, for example we know that God controls everything in our universe,
do you think it's moral that he makes us fighting each others ? do you think it's moral that he permits some children to die
by cancers and other diseases ? do you think it's moral that many will die due to disasters such as earthquakes ?

If you believe all such things are amoral then why you're searching for God or thinking that reaching Rome
is amoral whereas the other things allowed by God are moral?

I do not understand. Are you claiming that whatever G-d decrees is moral? And that you have perfect access to G-d's decrees? And that if ISIS wins, they clearly are G-d's representatives and therefore their moral values are G-d's and we should follow them?

 

[Shad]

Yours is a stupid approach, the point is that if they succeeded and were able to liberate Jerusalem from the Zionists and
if no power were able to stop them from establishing the Caliphate then that means the prophecy were fulfilled.

The conquest of these areas proves prophecy in which you put forward that would legitimize IS if they were the ones fulfilling prophecy. Try again son

So it's because of the prophecy and not because of their success.

Wrong as their success in the conquest of said areas is required to fulfill the prophecy. If group is unsuccessful there is no fulfillment of prophecy. Success is the major premise behind the very prophecy you brought up...

It proves the prophecy, i didn't say legitimacy, but it's you who have some difficulties in understanding, you're
always repeating the same words.

Wrong as you said it would legitimize the Caliph. Now if IS is the one fulfilling the prophecy they would be the legitimate Caliphate. Seems like you do not understand the very words you strung together. Maybe take English as a Second Language to help with your problems

It's a lesson and not an lesson, the rest is rubbish

Tell me that when you can understand English better than you do.

 

[Shad]

so only me and you are reading our own replies, what about making it PMs instead ?

No one else replied to me so why should I care what other people say to you about a topic I am not talking about? Your point is irrational. Why do I need to take anything to PMs, other to avoid your open display of mistakes and fallacious reasoning to the public with your inability to accept you made a mistake?

I wasn't speaking to you here, what happened.

Either you hit the wrong button or the forum alerted me to a comment you never made towards me. Did you hit the reply button for my comment then change it? On my end I got an alert, I clicked it, it went straight to the very comment I replied to.

 

[Gharib]

Thanks to YmirGF, I have started reading parts of text from Prof. Bernard Lewis on Islam, Muslims and the Middle East.

As this is a work in progress, I will have more posts in the near future answering some more questions that have been raised in this thread. But for now, this is what he has to say about the spread of Islam:


It is sometimes said that the Islamic religion was spread by conquest. The statement is misleading, though the spread of Islam was to a large extent made possible by the parallel processes of conquest and colonization. The primary war aim of the conquerors was not to impose the Islamic faith by force. The Qur'ân is explicit on this point: 'There is no compulsion in religion' (2:256). This was usually interpreted to mean that those who profess a monotheist religion and revere scriptures recognized by Islam as earlier stages of divine revelation may be permitted to practice their religions under the conditions imposed by the Islamic state and law. For those who were not monotheists and possessed no recognized scriptures, the alternatives were harsher, but there were few if any such in the regions ruled by the early Arab conquerors. The conquered peoples were given various inducements, such as lower rates of taxation, to adopt Islam, but they were not compelled to do so.

-Bernard Lewis, The Middle East

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And Christianity sees people as being inherently sinful no matter what they actually do.

Not exactly. That's a more Calvinist understanding of it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What's with all this "capturing Rome" talk?

 

[Shad]

Thanks to YmirGF, I have started reading parts of text from Prof. Bernard Lewis on Islam, Muslims and the Middle East.

As this is a work in progress, I will have more posts in the near future answering some more questions that have been raised in this thread. But for now, this is what he has to say about the spread of Islam:


It is sometimes said that the Islamic religion was spread by conquest. The statement is misleading, though the spread of Islam was to a large extent made possible by the parallel processes of conquest and colonization. The primary war aim of the conquerors was not to impose the Islamic faith by force. The Qur'ân is explicit on this point: 'There is no compulsion in religion' (2:256). This was usually interpreted to mean that those who profess a monotheist religion and revere scriptures recognized by Islam as earlier stages of divine revelation may be permitted to practice their religions under the conditions imposed by the Islamic state and law. For those who were not monotheists and possessed no recognized scriptures, the alternatives were harsher, but there were few if any such in the regions ruled by the early Arab conquerors. The conquered peoples were given various inducements, such as lower rates of taxation, to adopt Islam, but they were not compelled to do so.

-Bernard Lewis, The Middle East

Inducements are a form of compulsion just not a forceful one. One is just is overt

 

[Gharib]

Inducements are a form of compulsion just not a forceful one.

I wouldn't call it compulsion myself unless it was done in the same way as the Christian missionaries do it. They ask people to convert and in return supply them with food and water. They take advantage of the poor and needy. Muslims didn't do this.

 

[leibowde84]

Some people don't see any contradicton in saying one thing and following that by saying just the opposite, its hard to have a rational argument with such folk.

Still waiting on either of you to point out the contradiction.

 

[Augustus]

I wouldn't call it compulsion myself unless it was done in the same way as the Christian missionaries do it. They ask people to convert and in return supply them with food and water. They take advantage of the poor and needy. Muslims didn't do this.

So the Christian missionaries 'took advantage' of the poor and needy more than an Islamic society built on widespread slavery?

Do you think that slaves that converted did so purely for reasons of newfound piety?

And all Islamic missionaries today are perfectly ethical too...

The village of Megapura in the central highlands of Indonesia's far-eastern province of West Papua is so remote that supplies arrive by air or by foot only. Johanes Lokobal has lived here all his life. He does not know his exact age: "Just old," he croaks. He's also poor. "I help in the fields. I earn about 20,000 rupiah [$2] per day. I clean the school garden." But in a hard life, one hardship particularly offends him. In 2005, his only son, Yope, was taken to faraway Jakarta. Lokobal did not want Yope to go. The boy was perhaps 14, but big and strong, a good worker. The men responsible took him anyway. A few years later, Yope died. Nobody can tell Lokobal how, nor exactly when, and he has no idea where his son is buried. All he knows, fiercely, is that this was not supposed to happen.

"If he was still alive, he would be the one to look after the family," Lokobal says. "He would go to the forest to collect the firewood for the family. So I am sad."

The men who took Yope were part of an organised traffic in West Papuan youth. A six-month Good Weekend investigation has confirmed that children, possibly in their thousands, have been enticed away over the past decade or more with the promise of a free education. In a province where the schools are poor and the families poorer still, no-cost schooling can be an irresistible offer

But for some of these children, who may be as young as five, it's only when they arrive that they find out they have been recruited by "pesantren", Islamic boarding schools, where time to study maths, science or language is dwarfed by the hours spent in the mosque. There, in the words of one pesantren leader, "They learn to honour God, which is the main thing." These schools have one aim: to send their graduates back to Christian-majority Papua to spread their muscular form of Islam...

Andreas Asso's account and his differ on many points but they concur on one: the boys from the village in the wild highlands of Papua simply did not fit in. "It wasn't like a real school because in school they have classes," Andreas says. "In this one, we just went to a big mosque and all we learnt about was Islam, just reading the Koran. Sometimes they slapped us on the face, beat us with a wooden stick. They just told us we Papuans were black, we have dark skin."

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/theyre-taking-our-children-20130428-2inhf.html

 

[Gharib]

Still waiting on either of you to point out the contradiction.

As I said the first time, you'll get it eventually. If not this century then surely the next.

 

[leibowde84]

As I said the first time, you'll get it eventually. If not this century then surely the next.

I assume you are just being stubborn, as you have refused to point out the contradiction 3 times now. I have reported your comments as such ("trolling").

 

[Augustus]

What's with all this "capturing Rome" talk?

A lot of Islamic eschatology involves Rum [the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire]. It's why the IS magazine is called Dabiq.

The fact that neither the Byzantine Empire nor Constantinople exists today, and that the prophecies talk about swords, ships powered by wind and oars, and medieval style pitched battles with warriors on horses seems not to dampen some people's optimism regarding the accuracy of these predictions.

As such, many Muslims eagerly look forward to the days that the armies of Islam conquer Rome thus heralding the return of Jesus and the end of days.


Ka'b said: " In the conquest of Rome, an army will leave the Maghreb (Morocco, Algeria, and Tunis) with an easterly wind. None of their rowing oars break and none of their ropes get cut-off, til they reach Rome. They will conquer it. It (Rome) has a tree which is mentioned in the Book of Allah ... whoever hangs his weapon or ties his horse to it is considered by Allah one of the best martyrs. Ka'b also said: "Amoria will be conquered before Nicaea (a city in Turkey where today's Christian creed was formulated in 325 AD), Nicaea before Constantinople, and Constantinople before Rome." (Nuaim bin Hammad's Kitab al-Fitan)

Arta said:

"It has reached me that the Mahdi will live for forty years, then he will die on his bed. Then, a man from Qahtan will come, with pierced ears, who will follow the example of the Mahdi. He will remain for twenty years and then he will die, killed by a weapon. Then, a man will come from the household of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم , a mahdi (rightly guided) of good reputation, who will conquer the City of Caesar (Rome or Constantinople). He will be the last Amir (Prince) from the Ummah of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم . During his time, the Dajjal (Anti-Christ) will come out, and during his time, Jesus son of Mary عليه السلام will descend." (Nuaim bin Hammad's Kitab Al-Fitan, Jalal-uddine AsSuyuti's Al-Urf Al-Wardi fi Akhbar Al-Mahdi, a part of Al-Hawi li Al-Fatawa)

Zu Mukhammar said I heard the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم say, " You will make a Hudna (Truce Agreement) with the Romans, and together you and them will invade an enemy (located) behind you. You will be victorious, take much booty, and you will leave. Then, you will camp on a hilly pasture. When one of the Romans will approach (the Muslim army), raise a cross and says "The Cross has won", one of the Muslims will get angry and take off the Cross. Then, the Romans will trick (bluff or deceive) you, and gather (prepare) for the Malhama (War). They will gather an army against you and come against you with eighty banners, each banner followed by 10,000 (or 12,000) men."(Ahmad, Abu Dawud, and Ibn Majah)


Abu Huraira narrates that Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

"The Hour (of Resurrection) will not come until theالروم Romans land in Al-A'maq (valleys in Antioch, southern Turkey) or in Dabiq (a plain near Aleppo, Syria). An army consisting of the best of the people of the Earth (an international Muslim army) at that time will come out of Medina (in Saudi Arabia) to face them.

When they will arrange themselves in ranks, the Romans will say: ' Do not stand between us and those (Christian Converts to Islam) who were taken away from amongst us. Let us fight with them ' ; and the Muslims will say: 'No! by Allah, we will not stand aside and let you fight our brothers.'


They will then fight. A third (of the Muslim army) will be defeated (& run away), and Allah will never forgive them. A third (of the Muslim army) will be killed and they will be regarded as the best martyrs in the eyes of Allah. A third (of the Muslim army) will conquer and they do not get affected by Fitna (tribulations). They will conquer Constantinople.

While the Muslims are busy distributing the spoils (booty) of war, after hanging their swords by the olive trees, Satan will shout: 'The Anti-Christ has taken your place among your family (or in your land).' The Muslims will then come out, but will find out that it is not true. And when they arrive to Al-Sham (Damascus or Syria), he (Anti-Christ) will come out. While they (Muslims) are preparing to fight him, and drawing up their ranks, prayer time will come and then, Jesus the son of Mary will descend and lead (or join) them in prayer. When Allah's enemy (Anti-Christ) sees him (Jesus), it will dissolve just as the salt dissolves in water. If Jesus were to leave him (Anti-Christ) alone, he (Anti-Christ) would melt to death anyway, but Allah will have him (Anti-Christ) killed by his (Jesus') hand, and he (Jesus) will show the Muslims his (Anti-Christ's) blood on his (Jesus') spear." (Sahih Muslim)

 

[YmirGF]

Thanks to YmirGF, I have started reading parts of text from Prof. Bernard Lewis on Islam, Muslims and the Middle East.

As this is a work in progress, I will have more posts in the near future answering some more questions that have been raised in this thread. But for now, this is what he has to say about the spread of Islam:


It is sometimes said that the Islamic religion was spread by conquest. The statement is misleading, though the spread of Islam was to a large extent made possible by the parallel processes of conquest and colonization. The primary war aim of the conquerors was not to impose the Islamic faith by force. The Qur'ân is explicit on this point: 'There is no compulsion in religion' (2:256). This was usually interpreted to mean that those who profess a monotheist religion and revere scriptures recognized by Islam as earlier stages of divine revelation may be permitted to practice their religions under the conditions imposed by the Islamic state and law. For those who were not monotheists and possessed no recognized scriptures, the alternatives were harsher, but there were few if any such in the regions ruled by the early Arab conquerors. The conquered peoples were given various inducements, such as lower rates of taxation, to adopt Islam, but they were not compelled to do so.

-Bernard Lewis, The Middle East

I'm glad to see that you are appreciating what he has to say. Now, don't ignore the parts where he is somewhat scathing in his analysis.

 

[Shad]

I wouldn't call it compulsion myself unless it was done in the same way as the Christian missionaries do it. They ask people to convert and in return supply them with food and water. They take advantage of the poor and needy. Muslims didn't do this.

Taxes are a burden, lighter taxes for Muslims is a form of compulsion for non-Muslims, especially the prejudice tax of Jiyza

 

[Shad]

placeholder

Look at it this way. Create a mental image of a religious people or type of person you hate. Be it Zionists, Quran burning Christians, murders, slavers, etc, whatever fits this negative. Now say someone comes along and says that if a group of these people fulfill a prophecy they are legitimate X and follow the true form of religion X, X being whatever group you have picked. That is what you are saying. If IS fulfills prophecy they are legitimate and their views of Islam are true Islam. Murderers, slavers, terrorists, etc none of it matters because of prophecy. This is Islamic fatalism at it's finest which ignores the acts of the people and tosses everything to the will of God. This not only would make Islam look bad, it makes Allah immoral.

 

[leibowde84]

I wouldn't call it compulsion myself unless it was done in the same way as the Christian missionaries do it. They ask people to convert and in return supply them with food and water. They take advantage of the poor and needy. Muslims didn't do this.

Isn't that what the tax on non-Muslims does, though. They take money from them unless they convert, right?