UK uses Covert Propaganda to stop Muslims joining ISIS

[Rival]

That's the issue with translations, you'll never have 100% correct translation in every sense. No I did not, but I did read with word-to-word comments and I've been on many courses of local rabbi on Torah so I have a more in-depth view on Torah. Some Muslims won't agree with me, but Muhammad ﷺ was human and we are far from perfect. Quran is perfect, so was Torah before it got corrupt. I am just real, that's all. People should be educated more on Islam outside the Judaism or Christian-biased sources because it's obvious they will defend their own and portrait it as something evil, etc.

"Qur'an is perfect" but only in Arabic?
"So was Torah before it got corrupt" Why would Allah allow his scriptures to become corrupt, and how do you know it's not the same with Qur'an? Non-Islamic evidence the Torah is corrupt?
Isn't Muhammad supposed to be the greatest example, which is why all Muslims are supposed to follow his sunnah? How then can he be just a man?

 

[Raahim]

"Qur'an is perfect" but only in Arabic?
"So was Torah before it got corrupt" Why would Allah allow his scriptures to become corrupt, and how do you know it's not the same with Qur'an? Non-Islamic evidence the Torah is corrupt?
Isn't Muhammad supposed to be the greatest example, which is why all Muslims are supposed to follow his sunnah? How then can he be just a man?

Allah gave the Torah to the mankind and said people are to guard the Torah, while for Quran He said He will be the guardian of it.
Because there are many Muslims who know Quran by heart from generation to generation and they all match up and with historical copies. Non-Islamic evidence of Torah's corruption is not possible because back in the time only few people actually had access to Torah (Jews) and then there were many non-Jews who were unaware of such book. He is just a man, for me personally Quran is the core centre and Sunnah is something that goes along with it.

 

[Rival]

Allah gave the Torah to the mankind and said people are to guard the Torah, while for Quran He said He will be the guardian of it.
Because there are many Muslims who know Quran by heart from generation to generation and they all match up and with historical copies. Non-Islamic evidence of Torah's corruption is not possible because back in the time only few people actually had access to Torah (Jews) and then there were many non-Jews who were unaware of such book. He is just a man, for me personally Quran is the core centre and Sunnah is something that goes along with it.

"Because there are many Muslims who know Quran by heart from generation to generation and they all match up and with historical copies." This is false. The oldest Qur'an does not have diacritical marks as required on modern Arabic letters and so can be interpreted up to a dozen different ways. It also came up under an x-ray that certain older texts had been rubbed off and rewritten.

Also, memories are highly imperfect, says:

• We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara'at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: "If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust". ( Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.501).
• 
  We used to read a verse of the Qur'an revealed in their connection, but later the verse was cancelled. It was: "convey to our people on our behalf the information that we have met our Lord, and He is pleased with us, and has made us pleased". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p.288).
• 
  
• Allah sent Muhammad (saw) with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married persons, male and female, who commit adultery) and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle (saw) did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book', and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, p.539).
  
  A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that it had been revealed in the Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (saw) died and before that time it was found in the Qur'an. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.740).

 

[Aquitaine]

That's the issue with translations, you'll never have 100% correct translation in every sense. No I did not, but I did read with word-to-word comments and I've been on many courses of local rabbi on Torah so I have a more in-depth view on Torah. Some Muslims won't agree with me, but Muhammad ﷺ was human and we are far from perfect. Quran is perfect, so was Torah before it got corrupt. I am just real, that's all. People should be educated more on Islam outside the Judaism or Christian-biased sources because it's obvious they will defend their own and portrait it as something evil, etc.

Quran is perfect, Torah is corrupt. Yep: no bias there what so ever. . .

 

[Raahim]

Quran is perfect, Torah is corrupt. Yep: no bias there what so ever. . .

Well, that is my belief. Don't I have right to believe in it?

 

[Rival]

Well, that is my belief. Don't I have right to believe in it?

Yes, but proof is what non-believers need if you are to convince us. If you truly believed in your faith and that non-believers, mushrikun, dhimmis, khafir etc. will go to Jahannam for not believing and for committing shirk, then it is imperative you prove the faith to us before we burn forever, no?

 

[Aquitaine]

Well, that is my belief. Don't I have right to believe in it?

Of course, but you can't then go on about "Judeo-Christian biases" against the Quran etc. Surely you can see how hypocritical your post came across?

 

[Raahim]

Yes, but proof is what non-believers need if you are to convince us. If you truly believed in your faith and that non-believers, mushrikun, dhimmis, khafir etc. will go to Jahannam for not believing and for committing shirk, then it is imperative you prove the faith to us before we burn forever, no?

I'm not alim, so I can't do much. Proofs that convinced me might not work for you.

Of course, but you can't then go on about "Judeo-Christian biases" against the Quran etc. Surely you can see how hypocritical your post came across?

I understand that Judaism & Christian biased sources will go against the Quran, that's their right I just say that if you want to learn about Judaism you turn to Jewish sources, for Christianity you turn to Christian sources, for Islam you turn to Islamic sources, etc.

It's something like this - if you want to learn about capitalism you won't read something written by a hard-core communist, right?
You can hardly find neutral comparisons between things.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't like that it is covert, but that is certainly no worse in and of itself than having espionage agencies and active military forces.

I would hope that there is some form of opening of that information, perhaps after five years or something.

 

[Rival]

I understand that Judaism & Christian biased sources will go against the Quran, that's their right I just say that if you want to learn about Judaism you turn to Jewish sources, for Christianity you turn to Christian sources, for Islam you turn to Islamic sources, etc.

I quoted ahadith to prove my point. How is that using biased Judeo-Christian sources? And pointing out that the earliest Qur'an had no diacritics? These are Islamic sources.

 

[Aquitaine]

I understand that Judaism & Christian biased sources will go against the Quran, that's their right I just say that if you want to learn about Judaism you turn to Jewish sources, for Christianity you turn to Christian sources, for Islam you turn to Islamic sources, etc.

It's something like this - if you want to learn about capitalism you won't read something written by a hard-core communist, right?
You can hardly find neutral comparisons between things.

It depends really. I look at it a different way: when online shopping, should I only read the manufacturer's description of the product and the 5-star reviews, or do I read all of those as well as the 1-star reviews to get a more balanced perspective?

Religion is a product of and for the human mind: most religions have their "salespeople" trying to convince shoppers to buy their product, rather than buying their competitors'. . . or buying nothing at all.

 

[jeager106]

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html

164 Jihad Verses in the Koran

Oh, I dunno. Read 'em fer yerself.

We all know Islam is a religion of peace.

The word Islam means Peace, but for nearly 1,400 years its adherents have waged war―frequently on the grandest and most successful scales in history.

From this book and where you can order it.
Argue with the author.

 

[jeager106]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_war

From the time of the Muhammad, the founding prophet of Islam, many Muslim states and empires have been involved in warfare. The concept of jihad, the religious duty to struggle, has long been associated with violent struggles with non-Muslims, although many observers refer to such struggle as "the lesser jihad" by comparison with inner spiritual striving. Islamic jurisprudence on war differentiates between illegitimate and legitimate warfare and prescribes proper and improper conduct by combatants. Numerous armed anti-colonial military campaigns were waged as jihads.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_war
Not my opinion. Argue with wiki.

 

[Raahim]

I quoted ahadith to prove my point. How is that using biased Judeo-Christian sources? And pointing out that the earliest Qur'an had no diacritics? These are Islamic sources.

What difference does it make if Quran had no diacritics at the beginning? Those marks were later added due to the dialects of Arabic language and for new Muslims to be able to read Quran without having to study Arabic for 18 years.

It depends really. I look at it a different way: when online shopping, should I only read the manufacturer's description of the product and the 5-star reviews, or do I read all of those as well as the 1-star reviews to get a more balanced perspective?

Religion is a product of and for the human mind: most religions have their "salespeople" trying to convince shoppers to buy their product, rather than buying their competitors'. . . or buying nothing at all.

That's your opinion on religion, I can't compare it to a product.
(And I respect it)

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html

164 Jihad Verses in the Koran

Oh, I dunno. Read 'em fer yerself.

We all know Islam is a religion of peace.

The word Islam means Peace, but for nearly 1,400 years its adherents have waged war―frequently on the grandest and most successful scales in history.

From this book and where you can order it.
Argue with the author.

Islam means "devotion to God", not peace. 164 Jihad verses don't mean anything since you need to see the whole surah to get the wider picture.
On that book I give this.
People make wars, not religion.

 

[Rival]

What difference does it make if Quran had no diacritics at the beginning? Those marks were later added due to the dialects of Arabic language and for new Muslims to be able to read Quran without having to study Arabic for 18 years.

Because a diacritic can change the entire meaning of a word? They are kind of essential to having a full understanding, but because the original authors never put them in we can have basically no idea what the original word can have meant and we can only judge on context, and could be totally wrong as to what the author intended?

 

[jeager106]

Raahim:
Your last post makes sense to me.
Thanks for your perspective.

 

[jeager106]

From wiki:
In Arabic, the word “Islam” means submission or surrender – however, it was derived from the root word “salam”. From this root word, you can also derive the words peace and safety. Many people feel that Islam implies some sort of enslavement to Allah, but others find it more helpful to define the word “Islam” as surrender.

I dunno.
Above is just f.y.i.

 

[Aquitaine]

That's your opinion on religion, I can't compare it to a product.
(And I respect it)

Fair enough. Though do you acknowledge that when you claim the Quran is perfect and that other books are "corrupted", it paints a very biased picture: the same bias you wish people wouldn't have against the Quran?

 

[Laika]

As much as I meant the poll and the OP as sort of a joke, it was because I would have expected it was a given that this sort of thing would ring alarm bells. Instead I'm finding people sympathetic to the view that Muslims should be treated as a fifth column in the UK and should be actively indoctorinated by the UK government.

Whilst the distinction between defending the rights of extremists and terrorists and defending their beliefs and actions is admittedly a fine one, this sort of policy and legislation sets a tone of McCarthyist style attacks that a certian section of the population are representatives and the puppets of an "alien" power which is contary to "british" values and are defacto enemies of the state. treating a section of the population as "suspects" on the basis of shared beliefs rather than on the presumption of innocence and individual guilt based on actions, not beliefs, is not compatable with free socieities in the long-run. it undermines both secularism and freedom of religion by targeting a specific religious group and undermining the neutrality of the state as a safeguard to individual liberty.

I'm not a liberal, and I concede the problem of radicalization has no easy answers, but I'm still quietly alarmed that something like this is becoming acceptable.

 

[HonestJoe]

As we all know, the NSA and GCHQ is watching our every move on the internet, as part of the new effort by the government to listen to the people so the politicians don't have to.

That’s a load of rhetorical manure that doesn’t bode well for your ability to rationally assess anything in this area.

Do you think this is a highly innovative way to tackle extremism and respond to the threat of terrorism, or an infringement on civil rights with some dodgey precedents and maybe is a bit racist for targeting Muslims?

I think the general principle is fine and long as there is proper oversight (which seems to be the case). There is obviously a difficult line to draw when you have something that is only going to work with an element of secrecy.

I don’t think this sounds discriminatory (not “racist” obviously since the categorisation is based on religion, gender and age) in itself despite the reference to primarily targeting Muslims males of 15-39 given that it’s specifically targeting Islamic extremism and the same group is the primary targets for the extremists propaganda in the first place. For just practical reasons though, I’d hope and expect that they’re not blinkered to that sub-group alone given cases of, for example, girls being targeted and non-/non-practicing Muslims being dragged straight into the extremist element.