I am Mixed About Islam.

Post Reply New Topic

While we debate their doctrine and theology, the actions of Muslims are alarming.....the shite that goes down. You can try to make them into victims of some other power, the west, etc, but they pretty much slaughter each other mostly. And then you can look at event after event where Christian churches gets burned down for no reason, Christians gets slaughtered...in simple terms, a lot, this happens all the time. Or look at a picture of a gay guy hanging from a crane, or some girl with half a face burned off from acid. That's alarming and happens quite a bit. State sponsered crane hangings? Our society shuns hate crimes, their society enforces hate crimes.

It's a given that all Muslims aren't bad. Millions and millions of Muslims aren't "bad." You'd be an idiot to think so. But you can look at a problem with Islam in general by talking about the doctrine in the sense that it's written in a timeless fashion, the enemies of the Koran are infidels, their name is timeless and their definition is timeless. In the bible, most of the destruction is pointed at specific groups during specific times. That's worth mentioning because not a single soul can honestly justify genocide using the old testament without massive public shunning. Whereas, you could make good arguments for genocide using the Koran given that the "infidel" is a timeless word. We can all be infidels, but we can't be Amalakites.....

Jihad means struggel.
You can do bigger jihad and lesser Jihad.
Big jihad is with the soul, probably like inner dialogues and reading and debating.
Lesser Jihad is with the sword.

I know one can say, use the words:
Jihad with the pen.
Jihad with the tongue.
Jihad with the hands (work).
Jihad with the sword.
Jihad with the pussh - women running after men (Illeagal)).

This post is obviously about the term 'Jihad' and its origins and meaning.

Here's a clip from wiki

11 External links

Origins

Main article: List of expeditions of Muhammad

It also means 'struggle of Islam' but in which holy context this is used I am not so sure.

''The beginnings of Jihad are traced back to the words and actions of Muhammad and the Quran.[16] This encourages the use of Jihad against non-Muslims.[17] The Quran, however, never uses the term Jihad for fighting and combat in the name of Allah; qital is used to mean “fighting.” Jihad in the Quran was originally intended for the nearby neighbors of the Muslims, but as time passed and more enemies arose, the Quranic statements supporting Jihad were updated for the new adversaries.[17] The first documentation of the law of Jihad was written by 'Abd al-Rahman al-Awza'i and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani. The document grew out of debates that had surfaced ever since Muhammad's death.''

Usage of the term

''In Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or not, religious or secular (though كفاح kifāḥ is also used).[citation needed] For instance, Mahatma Gandhi's satyagraha struggle for Indian independence is called a "jihad" in Modern Standard Arabic (as well as many other dialects of Arabic); the terminology is also applied to the fight for women's liberation.[18]

The term 'jihad' has accrued both violent and non-violent meanings. It can simply mean striving to live a moral and virtuous life, spreading and defending Islam as well as fighting injustice and oppression, among other things.[19] The relative importance of these two forms of jihad is a matter of controversy. A poll by Gallup showed that a "significant majority" of Muslim Indonesians define the term to mean "sacrificing one's life for the sake of Islam/God/a just cause" or "fighting against the opponents of Islam".

Wreck, what on earth are you talking about?

Jihad is the transliteration of Arabic for "struggle". Similar in meaning to the German word Kampf.

ruveyn

Sure, whatever you say.

Does the IFE?

Given they call for the divine murder and torture of everyone who isn't in their church, also calling for the divine murder of apostates would be redundant.

In Syria now women are being recruited for giving sexual pleasure for the men whom are absent in the combat zone and does not have access to their wifes. I am talking about the usage of the word.

Why exactly does everyone object on my posts?!

Quoting scripture from the Qur'an to demonise Islam doesn't seem a lot different to me than people who quote even more horrific teachings from the Babylonian Talmud to demonise Judaism.

This paragraph from the Wiki page on the Talmud gives a good rebuttal that could equally be applied to the Qur'an :-

"The Anti-Defamation League's report on this topic states that antisemitic critics of the Talmud frequently use erroneous translations or selective quotations in order to distort the meaning of the Talmud's text, and sometimes fabricate passages. In addition, the attackers rarely provide full context of the quotations, and fail to provide contextual information about the culture that the Talmud was composed in, nearly 2,000 years ago.[90]

Gil Student, a prolific Internet author, states that many antisemitic attacks on the Talmud are merely recycling discredited material that originated in the 13th-century disputations, particularly from Raymond Marti and Nicholas Donin, and that the criticisms are based on quotations taken out of context, and are sometimes entirely fabricated.["


Another thing to consider, Islam is such an important part of these peoples lives that they describe their whole existence in terms of it, hence, when the West attacks and invades Islamic Countries in order to steal their oil, their response is expressed in a religious context rather than a Nationalistic context.

So the "suicide bomber" describes himself as dying for Allah, whereas in reality he is more likely dying for his country in the only way he can envisage to fight back at secular occupying forces,, little realising he is damaging the reputation of Islam by using it out of context.

semite means arab not jew.

Not sure why you now mention extra specifics.

Muhammad is acknowledged as Allah's Prophet in Sura 63:1 and 33:40.

And I remember prayer and Zakat were mentioned so many times when I was reading the Qur'an, but as for the specifics, I don't think they're mentioned. If your point is that the five pillars are not specifically and explicitly stated in the Qur'an the way you requested, I already agree they're not.

But do note what you quoted exactly when you asked for a source?



That is all indeed in the Qur'an.

Both may be considered Semites.

Of course, not all Arabs and Jews are.

You forgot the Old Testament. Nasty god you have there.

Here's an interesting list you should all look at:

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Shia_vs_Sunni

People tend to forget that Islam is split into two major branches. It's interesting to note how the majority group seems more liberal in their beliefs than the minor group.

None of those verses say that acknowledging Muhammad as the messenger of Allah is a prerequisite for being a Muslim.


Zero points for half answers.

*This* is what I quoted, and the part in bold is what you are continually ignoring:


There are 114 sura and 6236 verses (disregarding abrogated verses like the ones permitting alcohol, for instance) in the Qur'an - all of which could in theory be held up as part of the core belief in Islam, but only 5 specific teachings are singled out. And this is based on the Sunnah, and not the Qur'an.

Similar to the Ten Commandments bit even though there are way more commandments in the Old Testament, yet somehow they are like the core of Judeo-Christianity in terms of commandments.

Yes, I guess the explicit idea of the five pillars of Islam did not originate in the Qur'an but some other Islamic text. So what is the point exactly?

As for the Muhammad verses, let's quote them here:

The implication here is that one must truly acknowledge Muhammad as Allah's Messenger and not pretend to do so in order to be accepted by Allah. You might say this doesn't show that one must believe in Muhammad as a Messenger in order to be accepted by Allah if he isn't a hypocrite. But many verses show one must obey both Allah and Muhammad and not disbelieve them.

Fr example, few verses before before sura 33:40 (which is the following):



There is a verse that says the following:



Actually if you go through the whole Sura here, it condemns anyone disobeying Allah and His Messenger a few times. Now does obeying Allah's Messenger entail belief in him as Messenger? Not necessarily. But if we go with a simple interpretation, I think it's reasonable to say that one must accept Muhammad as Messenger in order to be accepted by Allah (or, in other words, be considered a Muslim submitting to Allah).

My bad. I contradicted myself here. It's not sourced in the Qur'an as specifically stated in Islam. I had not been not aware that the five pillars of Islam had those extra details in them.