Is IntellectualWaefare12 correct?

[sum]

Recently, IntellectualWarfare12 has denied that Islam allows lying to further the cause of Islam. I quoted Al Ghazali who said the "If an objective is worthwhile and can be achieved without lying, it is a sin to lie but if it can only be achieved by lying then lying is not a sin."

I claimed that furthering the cause of Islam was a very worthwhile objective to a muslim and therefore lying was permissible to further the cause. IntellectualWarfare12 would not accept this.

I also said that Islam divided the world into Dar Ul Islam and Dar Ul Harb but IntellectualWarfare12 said that Islam did not do this and refused to accept this statement of mine.

Is IntellectualWarfare12 correct and a member of a small sect that supports his views or is he simply wrong?

sum

[Galadriel]

I don't really care what intellectualWarfare12 said because all I care is about what Quran and Hadith teach. Anyway, intellectualWarfare12's replies and behaviour in this forum prove to us that what we believe Islam could do to someone's intellect is true.
_________________
Muslim, compare Quran with THIS WISDOM & your Friday sermon with THIS SERMON. Which one can make you a better person?

[ygalg]

simply ask him if he aliging with Ikrema Sabri on these statements:

[manfred]

Dear Sum,

You ask if lying is in fact permissible to promote Islam....

The points you raised has come up several times in different places on this forum, in various contexts, so perhaps it is not so easy to spot the pattern.

it looks like IW12 has in fact answered your question very clearly himself, with a resounding "yes", not in so many words, but by his actions: He has told you several half-truths or untruths because he wants to bring about your conversion, and you have listed at some of them yourself. No, that does not make him in any way unusual. In fact, that is the standard approach. Like with any cult, a proselyte is introduced gradually, with "love bombing" (= pretending to have an unusually intense care for the proselyte, caused by religious experience...) and carefully selected apologetics. Only after a commitment is made, the more controvsersial doctrines are revealed. In fact, the tactic is very similar to groups like the Jehovahs Witnesses. except that in Muslim countries at least a stubborn Kaffir may have to put up with rather more that being shunned....

Muslim Moral Teaching clearly distinguishes between how a Muslim should treat another Muslim and how s/he should treat Non-Muslims.

In general, required standards with regards to non-Muslims are significantly lower. The ends are always justifying the means. Providing some action is to bring about a perceived worthy cause, almost any action is permitted. Mohammed himself has on occasions used subtefuge, like fake peace agreements, to promote his aim.

If he can do this, what is a little lie to get someone to become a Muslim? In any case a Non-Believer is barely human, if at all, so Muslims are not really bound by any standards... (The Auschwitz concentration camp guard excuse...)

So, the advice "I don't really care what IW12 believes" is sound, I think. Sadly, it is almost impossible to get a Muslim to give out straight forward information about Islam. So "ask somebody who knows" is a good option for many other religions, not for Islam. It is best to make the effort and read around yourself. Not al lot of what Muslim people tell you personally can be trusted, and indeed, as seen many times on this forum, they are often caught out being, ehm, economical with the truth, trying to explain away obvious facts...

Perhaps a revealing question to ask IW12 would be: "Do you think it is reasonable, before committing oneself to becoming a Muslim, to read what ex-Muslims say about Islam?"

All the best

[katlike]

manfred:

[IntellectualWarfare12]

[IntellectualWarfare12]

[manfred]

The person calling him/herself INTELLECTUALWARFARE says:

[sum]

Hello IntellectualWarfare12

Your quote -
And who is more authoritative, Al Ghazali or Muhammad?

You are asking an irrelevant question.

Al Ghazali is one of Islam`s most respected scholars. He has studied all the scriptures - both Koran and sunnah and after due deliberation seriously concludes the "If an objective is worthwhile and can be achieved without lying then it is a sin to lie, but if it can not be achieved without lying it is not a sin to lie.".

I`m sorry, but your views are of no Islamic consequence unless you are lying to preserve the reputation of Islam.

You do not want the Dar Ul Islam and Dar Ul Harb to exist because they tell the world that Islam is at war with them and so Islam is allowed to lie in order to further its own cause. On this basis, non-muslims can not trust what muslims say.

You have not commented on why you do not believe that "Dar Ul Islam" and "Dar Ul Harb" exist in Islam. Who invented these terms - was it muslims? Why are there so many entries to explain these terms on google if there is no basis for these?

sum

[tomc]

The truth is simple

Sunni, lying is NOT permissible (but they're not getting anywhere without it, and the paedophile prophet lied, so they feel they have "permission from allah").

Shi'a, lying IS permissible.

Now obviously this is a rule that is unenforceable. In short it only works in muslims with character, and true faith. So by and large, they do lie.

[Realist]

[ygalg]

[Galadriel]

[Huston]

[Galadriel]

Yeah, sounds more like it.
_________________
Muslim, compare Quran with THIS WISDOM & your Friday sermon with THIS SERMON. Which one can make you a better person?