|
Attention: Year 2009 is here
Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sum
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 8527
Location: UK
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Hello Hamad Al-Hasan
Your question -
Dear sum,
I believe it is my turn to ask you a question. I was honest with you as other members stated, so I'm expecting the same from you, if you accept to answer the following question:
Suppose that your mother, baby sister, or any one you really love, have been raped barbarically. Later, the rapist has been arrested. He was sentenced to be stoned to death for that crime.
Would you accept that punishment ? If you don't, what do you accept as punishment which will be fair and make you all feel better?
Note: Only the member sum is meant to answer this question.
In the first place, it would not happen in an Islamic country and I would not support the stoning but ask for life imprisonment instead.
sum |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rat_bytes
Joined: 22 Apr 2008
Posts: 539
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hamad Al-Hasan wrote: |
| 1- It simply means kill those who are trying to kill you. Do you want muslims to be peaceful when someone is trying to kill them ? |
Does it mean that? It seems that it is now YOU who are not paying attention to context, Because elsewhere in the Quran it talks about those who disbelieve committing a crime against Islam simply by disbelieving - defining disbelief as idolatry or being a minion of Satan:
Women 4:76 Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. So fight the minions of the devil. Lo! the devil's strategy is ever weak.
See, you already defined "fight" as "kill" or "try to kill". "Fight the minions of the devil" by your own admission, can be reasonably read as "try to kill all unbelievers".
It also talks about those leaving Islam as mocking it or committing crimes against it. If the context of those verses are used in conjunction with this one, it shows us that Muslims have a very loose understanding of what "beginning hostilities" actually means. My denial of your scripture could be interpreted as a hostile act. According to your Quran, you would be justified in killing me.
It follows that the Quran can be used to justify violence against non-muslims simply for being non-muslim. We all know that Muslims think that those who are non-Muslim are serving Satan, it has been said by Muslims on this very site. Muslims view serving Satan as opposing or "fighting against" Islam. Ergo by Muslims' very definition, one cannot be an unbeliever without fighting against Islam.
| Hamad Al-Hasan wrote: |
2- Don't try and play with words. Look at the Tafsir of that verse. The arabic word used on fight, attack and slay are the same, which means "kill" or "try to kill". So, Allah is saying do not kill those at the holy place, but if they do try to kill you, then kill them.
That is the context of the verse. |
Again, I am noticing a discrepancy. Why is it that when unambiguous passages such as that on the killing of apostates and unbelievers can be manipulated by Muslims to seem less offensive than they are, not to mention the passages that Muslims try to claim are true revelations about physics and astronomy - whilst when I raise questions about the meaning of a verse I am "playing with words"? Simply put, when it comes to the Quran, why are only Muslims allowed to "play with words" but the Kaffir must accept whatever the Muslim is telling them?
You also did not address the section which reads "such is the reward of unbelievers". It does not say "such is the reward of unbelievers who attack Islam". By not putting a specifying verb before "unbelievers", it blankets ALL unbelievers. This implies that all unbelievers should receive death as their reward. It also goes on to say "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."
Now, I've seen what Muslims think is persecution and they've got it ass-backwards. They think they are persecuted in Kaffir countries, there are hundreds of them who rail against it despite being given welfare, equality, and human rights. Their idea of "persecution" consists of living in a state that is not Islamic. It follows that by defining mere existence in a Kaffir country as "persecution", the Quran could be used to justify fighting them until "religion is for Allah". Looks pretty clear to me - if you live in a Kaffir country you are justified in killing the Kaffir until the main religion is Islam.
_________________
The world holds two classes of men - intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence. - Abu’l‐Ala al Ma’arri
Last edited by Rat_bytes on Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:41 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Haik Monsieur
Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 2393
Location: FFI
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
________________
| Hamad Al-Hasan wrote: |
| Haik Monsieur wrote: |
How would I simplify it? Dude, what I say is: If you argue Islam is only alive in your book and nowhere otherwise, it means Islam is not alive at all. Your book may be kept and Islam will remain confined.
Or to be more simple: Islam needs persons (Human beings) to survive. The system does not mean to be constricted in some writings. If it is so, what is the point of arguing "Muslims" rather than "Islam?"
Will you stop saying "Muslims?" I am sure you won't. And that is what I am all about.
|
Let me clarify this one more time.
Suppose that Islam has 100 teachings that every muslim has to follow, ok ? Muslims of this age (generally speaking) do no fully implement the 100 in their lifes, some will do 50, 60, 70 ... If you don't follow everything altogether, flaws will start to occur whether politically, socially or economically.
My point is, in order to judge the effectiveness of Islam, you have to find a muslim society who mostly implement the 100 teachings. The problem of this age is that we cannot find such. |
All right bob; what I tried to make clear is beyond the capability of your comprehension. So that I am going to accept your theory of all what we find as chaos in the Muslim world is because they do not follow Islam word to word.
Let me ask you then: You told me to find a Muslim society who mostly implements Islamic teachings to its fullest. You are sure I am not going to find any because such a society does not exist. Why? Is there anything wrong with Islam that we can not find any society over this planet earth now implementing the teachings of Islam fully? Out of 50 or more Muslim majority nations, none is Islamic. In a perfect sense no Muslim society exists now. Then should not I doubt something is terribly wrong with Islam? If Islam is that much beautiful and a remedy for all of world’s problems, why people do not implement it? I think you can not even find a society with 50 percent Islam with it. Does not this mean there are many things terribly impractical in Islam?
Who was implementing Islam in its fullest? You can not argue with me Muhammad could not do it. Can you? So, let me ask you: why did he fail in his marriages then? I gave you link to his familial life and how terribly it went wrong with him. He could not show you an example of supreme familial values and if in fact you are trying to emulate his family that would be hell on earth for you. So, where does this Islam live? In your books only? If it is such a bloody system without any practical relevance, what is the point in arguing for it dear Muslim?
Muhammad couldn’t build an Ummah where his grandsons will be safe from the hands of Muslims. Did you forget this fact? Whose fault is it? Is it the fault of Muhammad? If so, it means Islam is faulty. Do you get this point?
| Hamad Al-Hasan wrote: |
| Are the caliphs considered societies? They are individuals!! I want you to look into the society at the times of the caliphs, specially the 2nd one Omar (ra). I did not ask you to look at them from a political point of view (murders, and what they have done), I want you to carefully examine their societies. |
Dude… I am not unfamiliar with Muslim arguments and your above hocus pocus does not amaze me at all. I have become seasoned to it.
You ask me Caliphs are not societies. Well, Caliphs are the representatives of societies. I showed you how they failed and now you want me to look on the society under Omar?
Well, do you know of Omar’s society well? He had little or no time to rule the Muslim society because all the time he was invading and invading nearer and far territories. But let me just quote the anarchy that was prevalent in the society which you prescribed me to study and learn how beautiful a society Islam builds. This excerpt is taken from an Islamic website:
With the conquest of Iraq and Syria, Iraqi and Syrian women became available to the Muslims. Attracted by the beauty of these women, the Muslims divorced their Arab wives. That created a social crisis which led to sexual laxity. Umar accordingly ordered that marriages with foreign ladies should be permitted under exceptional circumstances. Hudhaifa was the administrator of al Madina and he married a Christian beauty of Iraq. When this was brought to the notice of Umar he required Hudhaifa to divorce the Christian beauty, Hudhaifa said that he would not comply with the order unless he was told whether his marriage was unlawful or else; the Caliph referred to the authority under which he wanted him (Hudhaifa) to divorce his legally wedded wife. Umar wrote to say that the marriage he had contracted was not unlawful, but he had been advised to divorce the Christian beauty as it was bound to adversely affect the interests of Arab ladies. Moreover if the Muslims married non-Muslim ladies merely for their beauty that would encourage sexual laxity. Thereupon Hudhaifa divorced his Christian wife.
Besides four lawful wives Islam permitted any man to take over any number of slave girls to bed. These slave girls were to be the property of the Master and he could sell them any time. With the extension in conquests the number of available slave girls increased and Umar felt that this would promote sexual laxity. He ordered that Umm ul Walad that is such slave girls who bore children to their masters would stand emancipated. This had the effect that such women could no longer be treated as concubines and were to be given the status of regular wives or divorced when they could, as free women, marry other persons.
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/14_umar_bin_al_khattab.htm#Slavery
Go through it carefully and see what a beautiful society was it under Omar. Slavery being rampant. Morally lax, full of fights and feuds. And you say we have good example to follow in it? Is it what Islam can offer? I really pity you Muslim...
I made this comment earlier too on you: It seems like you do not belong to this planet at all.
| Hamad Al-Hasan wrote: |
| Well, I don't like ppl who misinterpret or misquote on purpose. I don't like ppl who wish to argue for arguing, not to learn. And most importantly, I do not like responding to ppl who call our prophet (pbuh) a scumbag, when they are supposed to have some sort of ethics and respect while criticizing Islam or its prophet. That highly discourages me from continuing any discussion. |
Well Mr. Muslim, in fact it does not take us infidels to criticize your prophet. It has already been made. The first critic was Aisha the child bride of your prophet. It is narrated in Bukhari that she accused Muhammad of being a man driven by lust, moreover she called Muhammad’s god a pimp too. I will end up this with that relevant hadith:
Narrated Aisha: I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah's Apostle and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).' (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), "I feel that your lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires." [Sahih Bukhari. Book: 60, Hadith: 311]
See the bolded parts in the hadith. They are Aisha's words. You can not escape it.
What we infidels do is just quoting your honorable figures your authentic sources and please do not accuse us of unethically criticizing your prophet. If you want to accuse, start from Aisha and then your honorable Imams, Muhaddiths, historians…
Spare us dear Muslim. What is wrong in quoting your authentic sources? Why don’t redirect your anger towards Aisha who trashed both Muhammad and his god?
Regards
KhaliL
_________________
________________________________ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skynightblaze
Joined: 17 Jun 2007
Posts: 1155
Location: A place where i sniff a paedophile
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@hamad
I see you answered my points. I will be writing a response to you here again tomorrow for your shallow points. By the way i suggest a better punishment than stoning. Cut every single organ of an individual even if it be a minor crime. That way no crime will ever take place. You didnt answer my question . IS that acceptable? Please provide the reason for yes/no.
_________________
Simba is my name and paedophile hunting is my game!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
charleslemartel
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 1071
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear H M,
No wonder you are the number one target of Muslims on this forum after Ali Sina. You expose them so brilliantly. I was shocked to learn about the society under Omar.
_________________
Happy New Year to Everyone
Fear is the most powerful emotional tool, it can turn off the areas of the brain responsible for rational thought.
Is that why Muslims can't be rational? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
charleslemartel
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 1071
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| skynightblaze wrote: |
@hamad
I see you answered my points. I will be writing a response to you here again tomorrow for your shallow points. By the way i suggest a better punishment than stoning. Cut every single organ of an individual even if it be a minor crime. That way no crime will ever take place. You didnt answer my question . IS that acceptable? Please provide the reason for yes/no. |
You have asked this question to many Muslims without ever receiving any answer.
It is my feeling that this time too it is not going to be any different 
_________________
Happy New Year to Everyone
Fear is the most powerful emotional tool, it can turn off the areas of the brain responsible for rational thought.
Is that why Muslims can't be rational? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rat_bytes
Joined: 22 Apr 2008
Posts: 539
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've always wondered how Muslims justify running from a debate. What do they tell themselves? Or do they just predictably refer to those parts of the Quran that says Allah deliberately misleads unbelievers?
_________________
The world holds two classes of men - intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence. - Abu’l‐Ala al Ma’arri |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rat_bytes
Joined: 22 Apr 2008
Posts: 539
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hamad, your god frowns upon you for displaying such intellectual cowardice.
_________________
The world holds two classes of men - intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence. - Abu’l‐Ala al Ma’arri |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
