100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Homosexuals and Islam | |
|---|---|
|
|
 of course nobody want to see inocent ppl die or been killed for their believes or sexual preferences But the ones that are doing all that stuff wont listen or Change and are in their own country us in here can see how wrong it is but it needs to get the message Over there to those ppl not bla bla bla among ourselves we're not the ones doin all those killins |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of course nobody want to see inocent ppl die or been killed for their believes or sexual preferences But the ones that are doing all that stuff wont listen or Change and are in their own country us in here can see how wrong it is but it needs to get the message Over there to those ppl not bla bla bla among ourselves we're not the ones doin all those killins |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gods chosen is historys greatest crock of dino crap ever perpetrated, even more crap then the indians selling Manhattan for $24 in trinkets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now, let's see who supports Islam. I am not pro-homosex. I also do not advocate killing them because they practice it. Do you support Muslims killing homosexuals?  Watch this true video. Don't fear seeing the truth about what Muslims do to them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zL_zP2pHp3w#! wc all friends i am back. Lol ur attitude show that u dont like islam. Mind like u r creating distance among the ppls. U r just posting to show that islam is not a good religion . Ppls like u cant do anything . Islam is the fastes spreading religion in all. here i am refering you some famous name who accept islam. Lew a famosu basket ball player. Mike, a famous boxer. Arther, an american jazz musician. Dave, an american tv comedian. Chris eubank. British boxer. Nell , aferican crickter u claming islam is fear. And non-muslim accepting islam caz of fear. So these are some famous name i have refer you. No muslim keep sward on there throat, to accept islam. It was there own wish. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now, let's see who supports Islam. I am not pro-homosex. I also do not advocate killing them because they practice it. Do you support Muslims killing homosexuals? Watch this true video. Don't fear seeing the truth about what Muslims do to them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zL_zP2pHp3w#! wc all friends i am back. Lol ur attitude show that u dont like islam. Mind like u r creating distance among the ppls. U r just posting to show that islam is not a good religion . Ppls like u cant do anything . Islam is the fastes spreading religion in all. here i am refering you some famous name who accept islam. Lew a famosu basket ball player. Mike, a famous boxer. Arther, an american jazz musician. Dave, an american tv comedian. Chris eubank. British boxer. Nell , aferican crickter u claming islam is fear. And non-muslim accepting islam caz of fear. So these are some famous name i have refer you. No muslim keep sward on there throat, to accept islam. It was there own wish. And of course last names... Cat Stevens turned Muslim and he turned his back on Music for years! So he is no longer a famous musician but an obscure Muslim with a son with a talent for music who wants to pursue his talents. Islam is not about art, it is not about beauty, it is not about making us better. It is only about control over what we think and do. And our favorite poster child for Islam here is not answering my questions. maybe the answers are far too difficult for him to acknowledge because the answers transcend Islam!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANDYB DOOG..
You peopels are allergic from words 'JEHAD' JEHAD mean to protect islam from threat. U need to differntiate JEHAD from terrorisam. Bombing, killing civlilian, killing innocents life. Forcing non muslim to accept islam. Destroyng charch or other religious place of non- muslim its anint jehad and nor muslimsm. So u claming the agenda of jews is peace. But i am searching peace n palastin i aint find it. And dont claim palastin is the land of jews. Quran said 1400 years ago there will be no land(country) on earth rule by jews. And the fact still present. Logically u trying to show that islam. Quran muhammd alll fals and fake. So i cant repeat again i have already explain it n many occussion in this forum. U refusing , no hand of jews in 9/2/11 , u neeed to read some intelegnce report. A new report i have readn a month ago, announce by afganistan govt. Usa planing to build a new country for jews on border area of. Afgan,china,and pak so did u arrange 9/2/11 attack to make way for ur new country. I think so |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANDYB DOOG.. You peopels are allergic from words 'JEHAD' JEHAD mean to protect islam from threat. U need to differntiate JEHAD from terrorisam. Bombing, killing civlilian, killing innocents life. Forcing non muslim to accept islam. Destroyng charch or other religious place of non- muslim its anint jehad and nor muslimsm. So u claming the agenda of jews is peace. But i am searching peace n palastin i aint find it. And dont claim palastin is the land of jews. Quran said 1400 years ago there will be no land(country) on earth rule by jews. And the fact still present. Logically u trying to show that islam. Quran muhammd alll fals and fake. So i cant repeat again i have already explain it n many occussion in this forum. U refusing , no hand of jews in 9/2/11 , u neeed to read some intelegnce report. A new report i have readn a month ago, announce by afganistan govt. Usa planing to build a new country for jews on border area of. Afgan,china,and pak so did u arrange 9/2/11 attack to make way for ur new country. I think so 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANDYB DOOG.. You peopels are allergic from words 'JEHAD' JEHAD mean to protect islam from threat. U need to differntiate JEHAD from terrorisam. Bombing, killing civlilian, killing innocents life. Forcing non muslim to accept islam. Destroyng charch or other religious place of non- muslim its anint jehad and nor muslimsm. So u claming the agenda of jews is peace. But i am searching peace n palastin i aint find it. And dont claim palastin is the land of jews. Quran said 1400 years ago there will be no land(country) on earth rule by jews. And the fact still present. Logically u trying to show that islam. Quran muhammd alll fals and fake. So i cant repeat again i have already explain it n many occussion in this forum. U refusing , no hand of jews in 9/2/11 , u neeed to read some intelegnce report. A new report i have readn a month ago, announce by afganistan govt. Usa planing to build a new country for jews on border area of. Afgan,china,and pak so did u arrange 9/2/11 attack to make way for ur new country. I think so My friend you are SO WRONG! And you are wrong because YOUR OWN FAITHFUL HAVE MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR SINCE THE 1970s JIHAD IS THE HOLY WAR AGAINST US INFIDELS! Jews do not rule the world. You are so faking yourself out and clearly your lack of education shows since you are listening to others you feel are more enlightened in a theocratic world. So how shall I explain this? Let me try to educate you some on the workings of the real world. Money makes the world of man go round. "Bank of Islam?" The boarders of many of the nations of the Middle East save one Israel were formed by the British with the blessing of the UN. The money trail leads to England. Lately English Banking has come under more scrutiny world wide than the Swiss. Why? Recently it has been coming to light the fraud perpetrated by Global Banking and the criminal activities of GLOBAL BANKERS. it is not Jews in English banking pulling all the BS and if anything Jewish banks are solvent because they obeyed the fundamental rules of banking and kept their hands clean of a lot of illegal crap. Now back to BANK of Islam, do you think for a moment these people have Islam's interests at heart when it comes to money? Bankers play BOTH SIDES as long as they can stay on top of BOTH SIDES! When they cant we all get suckered into another war to gain control of the flow of MONEY! Now about Jihad... As defined by Wikipedia and I quote! Warfare (Jihad bil Saif) Further information: Mujahideen, Jihadism, and Jihad fi sabil Allah Within classical Islamic jurisprudence—the development of which is to be dated into the first few centuries after the prophets death[31]—jihad is the only form of warfare permissible under Islamic law, and may consist in wars against unbelievers, apostates, rebels, highway robbers and dissenters renouncing the authority of Islam.[32] The primary aim of jihad as warfare is not the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam by force, but rather the expansion and defense of the Islamic state.[33][34] In later centuries, especially in the course of the colonization of large parts of the Muslim world, emphasis has been put on non-militant aspects of the jihad. Today, some Muslim authors only recognize wars with the aim of territorial defense as well as the defense of religious freedom as legitimate.[35] Whether the Quran sanctions defensive warfare only or commands an all out war against non-Muslims depends on the interpretation of the relevant passages.[36] This is because it does not explicitly state the aims of the war Muslims are obliged to wage; the passages concerning jihad rather aim at promoting fighters for the Islamic cause and do not discuss military ethics.[37] In the classical manuals of Islamic jurisprudence, the rules associated with armed warfare are covered at great length. Such rules include not killing women, children and non-combatants, as well as not damaging cultivated or residential areas.[38] More recently, modern Muslims have tried to re-interpret the Islamic sources, stressing that Jihad is essentially defensive warfare aimed at protecting Muslims and Islam.[34] Although some Islamic scholars have differed on the implementation of Jihad, there is consensus amongst them that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against persecution and oppression.[39] BUT NOW WITH THIS ASIDE WE LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THOSE WHO DIES IN THIS JIHAD AGAINST THE OPPRESSORS BY GROUPS LIKE THE TALIBAN, AL-QUIEDA, BOKO-HAREM AND OTHERS, Soldiers from our military, civilians, women and children, (how about that 14 year old girl shot in the head execution style in Pakistan recently for daring to speak up?) and how have these attacks come? SUICIDE BOMBINGS, BOMBS, and ARMED MEN WITH GUNS! So it is acceptable to kill women and children at a bus stop because they are Jewish? Now digressing to what I know of the Aramaic languages as I understand them, there are four with Farsi being the dominate language. The word for struggle is also the SAME as the word for war depending on how you want it to sound. Again the inflection of a word is something that goes over the heads of most westerners since English is more to the point but more verbose. Again I shall quote from the Wikipedia. Debate Controversy has arisen over whether the usage of the term jihad without further explanation refers to military combat, and whether some have used confusion over the definition of the term to their advantage.[40] Middle East historian Bernard Lewis argues that "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists (specialists in the hadith) understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense."[41] Furthermore, Lewis maintains that for most of the recorded history of Islam, from the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad onward, the word jihad was used in a primarily military sense.[42] Bernard Lewis' interpretation on Jihad is partially correct according to Fiqh Made Easy: A Basic Textbook of Islamic Law which describes Jihad as being "divided into four types: Jihad against the soul: Struggling against the soul to yearn for the Religion, act upon those teachings, and call others to them. (Paraphrased) Jihad against Shaytan: Struggling against Satan without doubts or desires. Jihad against the disbelievers and hypocrites: this is done with the tongue, hand, heart and wealth. Jihad against heretics, liars, and evilfolk: This is best done with the hand, if not the hand then the tongue, if that's not possible then the heart."[43] And allow me to note that again History and the actions OF ISLAMICS shows me what I need to know! So have you even addressed my questions or is learning from other faiths too much for you? Do not come before me claiming to be a scholar when you are afraid of the truth! Islam is not the faith of innocence you think it is! Also bear in mind calling me a dog is calling me God in reverse! Are you ready to kneel before my Majesty yet? You may call me all the names int eh world but they are just insults where I come to this table asking you hard questions you have no answer for. You have not the spine to call me names to my face. That is because Islam has proven to be the faith of Cowards and the Ignorant. Go ahead and waste all your energy hating and blaming Jews for the stuff your own leaders are guilty of. How can you even DARE COME BEFORE US TELLING US WE ARE MISINFORMED ABOUT ISLAM WHEN HERE YOU ARE SPEWING YOUR PREJUDICE AND HATRED FOR JEWS HERE! Right here you are proving yourself to be a hypocrite and LIAR by your very own words! I am not allergic to the Word Jihad. I am allergic to "Struggles." You have never read a book called Mein Kamph. It was written by Adolph Hitler! IN English it means MY STRUGGLE and it spent a lot of time blaming Jews too! And the report you read is a crock of crap. Israel has no intentions of going anywhere. And it looks like they may lay claim to the Saini if your new Egyptian Islamic president cannot get a handle on the militants there. The Jews are about to stomp more of your bretheran good again! And for what? You stupid a$$holes are so wrapped up in your war of hatred towards other faiths that you could care less if it leads to your own destruction as long as you get to kill Jews? A religion that preaches a perpetual war is not peaceful no mater how flowery the words are and the allegories sound so romantic! To me you are the living embodiment of tragic comedy! You think you know so much when indeed you see so little! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Tue 10/16/12 10:21 AM
|
|
Abrogation and Jihad
How does the theological debate over abrogation impact contemporary policy formulation? While not all terrorism is rooted in Islam, the religion is an enabler for many. It is wrong to assume that more extreme interpretations of religion are illegitimate. Statements that there is no compulsion in religion and that jihad is primarily about internal struggle and not about holy war may receive applause in university lecture halls and diplomatic board rooms, but they misunderstand the importance of abrogation in Islamic theology. It is important to acknowledge that what university scholars believe, and what most Muslims—or more extreme Muslims—believe are two different things. For many Islamists and radical Muslims, abrogation is real and what the West calls terror is, indeed, just. During the lifetime of Muhammad, the Islamic community passed through three stages. In the beginning from 610 until 622, God commanded restraint. As the Muslims relocated to Medina (623-26), God permitted Muslims only to fight in a defensive war. However, in the last six years of Muhammad's life (626-32), God permitted Muslims to fight an aggressive war first against polytheists,[52] and later against monotheists like the Jews of Khaybar.[53] Once Muhammad was given permission to kill in the name of God, he instigated battle. Chapter 9 of the Qur'an, in English called "Ultimatum," is the most important concerning the issues of abrogation and jihad against unbelievers. It is the only chapter that does not begin "in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful."[54] Commentators agree that Muhammad received this revelation in 631, the year before his death, when he had returned to Mecca and was at his strongest.[55] Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari (810-70), compiler of one of the most authoritative collections of the hadith, said that "Ultimatum" was the last chapter revealed to Muhammad[56] although others suggest it might have been penultimate. Regardless, coming at or near the very end of Muhammad's life, "Ultimatum" trumps earlier revelations. Because this chapter contains violent passages, it abrogates previous peaceful content. Muhsin Khan, the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari, says God revealed "Ultimatum" in order to discard restraint and to command Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam or until they pay religious taxes. So, at first aggressive fighting was forbidden; it later became permissible (2:190) and subsequently obligatory (9:5).[57] This "verse of the sword" abrogated, canceled, and replaced 124 verses that called for tolerance, compassion, and peace.[58] Suyuti said that everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish God's kingdom on earth. Prior to receiving "Ultimatum," Muhammad had reached agreements with various Arab tribes. But when God gave Muhammad a revelation (2:190-2), Muhammad felt justified in breaking his cease-fire. For Isma'il bin Kathir (1301-73), a student of Ibn Taymiyya and an influential Qur'an interpreter in his own right, it is clear: As jihad involves death and the killing of men, God draws attention to the fact that disbelief, polytheism, and avoidance of God's path as shown by the Qur'an are worse than killing them.[59] This creates license for future generations of Muslims to kill non-Muslims solely on the basis of their refusal to accept Islam. According to Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Chapter 9:5, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first caliph, used this and other verses to validate fighting anyone who either did not pay religious taxes to the Muslims or convert to Islam. Ibn ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, one of the hadith transmitters, quoted Muhammad as saying, "I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God." He testified that Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, an authentic transmitter of hadiths, said that the verse of the sword "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term." ‘Awfi cited Ibn ‘Abbas, who argued that "Ultimatum" obviated earlier peace treaties.[60] The Shafi‘i school took this as a justification for killing anyone who abandoned prayer and for fighting anyone who refused to pay increased religious minority taxes.[61] Such interpretations resonate. Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti, a contemporary Al-Azhar University scholar, wrote that "the verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that holy war, which is demanded in Islamic law, is not a defensive war because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all holy wars. Its goal is the exaltation of the word of God, the construction of Islamic society, and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth regardless of the means. It is legal to carry on an offensive holy war."[62] Defensive warfare in Islam is nothing but a phase of the Islamic mission that the Prophet practiced. After that, it was followed by another phase, that is, calling all people to embrace Islam. Even for People of the Book, there can be no role except conversion to Islam or subjugation to Muslim rule. Hence, Muhammad's statement, "They would not invade you, but you invade them."[63] Modern Revisionism of Jihad David Powers, a well-known researcher of classical Islam, agreed that 9:5 abrogates no less than 124 verses that command or imply anything less than a total offensive against the non-believers. However, he says the verse is itself considered to be abrogated by the conditional clause with which it concludes: "But if they repent and perform the prayer and pay the alms, then let them go their way."[64] But such a condition is not magnanimous: When infidels repent and perform the Muslim prayer and pay alms, it means they have become Muslims. Once they are Muslims, there is no need to slay them. The clause thus becomes more coercive than conditional. It suggests than a non-Muslim must convert to Islam or be slain. Still, no verse is more frequently cited by contemporary Muslims preachers and analysts to depict Islam as peaceful and compassionate as 2:256, "Let there be no compulsion in religion." For Sheikh Abdur Rahman, the chief justice of Pakistan, this verse is one of the most important, containing a charter of freedom of conscience unparalleled in the religious annals of mankind.[65] Muhammad offered this verse in his first year of residence in Medina when he needed the Jews' support. Nahhas, with the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas, said: "Scholars differed concerning 2:256. Some said it has been abrogated by 9:73 for the Prophet compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fight those that had no alternative but to surrender to Islam. Other scholars said that 2:256 had not been abrogated concerning the People of the Book. It is only the infidels who are compelled to embrace Islam."[66] Suyuti does not see 2:256 abrogated by 9:73 but rather interprets 9:73 as a case of postponing the fight until Muslims become strong. He argues that when Muslims were weak, God commanded them to be patient.[67] This is also the case of sura 9:29, which deals with Jews and Christians. Fighting them is mentioned after the clarification regarding fighting the idolaters (9:5). This verse (9:29) was revealed when Muhammad was commanded to fight the Byzantines and prepared the expedition to Tabuk. Ibn Kathir declared: The order is to fight the People of the Book until they pay the jizyah (protection tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad because all prophets commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him even though he is the "mightiest of all messengers because it suits their desires and lusts, and because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all prophets." Ibn Kathir continues: "This honorable verse was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book. After the pagans were defeated, the people entered God's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control."[68] The issue of abrogation in Islam is critical to understanding both jihad and da'wa, the propagation of Islam. Some Muslims may preach tolerance and argue that jihad refers only to an internal, peaceful struggle to better oneself. Western commentators can convince themselves that such teachings are correct. However, for learned Muslim scholars and populist leaders, such notions are or should be risible. They recognize that, in practice, there is compulsion in Islam. They take seriously the notion that the Qur'an teaches not just tolerance among religions, but tolerance among religions on the terms of Islam. To understand the challenge of the current Islamist revival, it is crucial for non-Muslims and moderate Muslims alike to recognize that interpretation of Islamic doctrine can have two faces, and that the Medinan face may very well continue to overshadow the Meccan face for a major portion, if not the majority, of contemporary Muslims. http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANDYB DOOG.. You peopels are allergic from words 'JEHAD' JEHAD mean to protect islam from threat. U need to differntiate JEHAD from terrorisam. Bombing, killing civlilian, killing innocents life. Forcing non muslim to accept islam. Destroyng charch or other religious place of non- muslim its anint jehad and nor muslimsm. So u claming the agenda of jews is peace. But i am searching peace n palastin i aint find it. And dont claim palastin is the land of jews. Quran said 1400 years ago there will be no land(country) on earth rule by jews. And the fact still present. Logically u trying to show that islam. Quran muhammd alll fals and fake. So i cant repeat again i have already explain it n many occussion in this forum. U refusing , no hand of jews in 9/2/11 , u neeed to read some intelegnce report. A new report i have readn a month ago, announce by afganistan govt. Usa planing to build a new country for jews on border area of. Afgan,china,and pak so did u arrange 9/2/11 attack to make way for ur new country. I think so If this were my country Muslims here would be told to naturalize or leave under force of arms! If this were my country children would not be forced to read bibles of any kind until they got to HS where all of them would be required reading. If this were my country Islam would not be allowed here at all. If this were my country we would not be as culturally ignorant as we really are! The people of Islam would be allowed to visit and live here so they can see and compare what a better way of life really is, one where people do not have to fear God, or one another, or fear being killed because you disagree with some other guy's interpretation of what God is. But allow Mosques to be built here? NO WAY! But this is not MY country! If it was Iran's military would be a smoking ruin right now, The ayatollah would be hung, and all Mosques burned to the ground and a new wave of religious oppression begun. if this were my nation 9/11 would have been answered with ever available bomber we had carpet bombing Mecca. I make no bones about this, it is good I am not in charge for Islam at least! There is NO WAY IN HELL I would come to your nation unarmed! NONE AT ALL just because of people like you who are convinced that all white Americans are Jewish some how (I am Irish and Italian!) and that all Americans are part of some evil empire bent to rule YOUR WORLD. Hey buddy, I BARELY make ends meet if at all here. I am not privileged. in YOUR part of this Toilet Earth I have to fear being abducted and possibly killed because I just am an American! At least here YOUR potty mouth can walk our streets unarmed and safe with very little chance of being killed because you are Middle Eastern. Yes there are places here you just don't go unless you like being victimized and we do have religious violence here but it is SO RARE HERE IN COMPARISON TO YOUR HOME! I am not happy with my leadership and I am not happy with Christianity or Judea. They have a lot of blood on their hands like my forefathers the ROMANS who ruled your people with an IRON FIST! Strangely you had peace during that era though! (WHOOPS, I am assuming you are Arab! You are farther east than Rome held probably!) Rome became the Holy Roman Catholic Church. They went from Government to Religion. Then came the Middle ages where a Christian Theocracy arose. Then along came Martin Luther who blew all of that for the Church. Education became the undoing of the Catholic Church. JUDEA LASTED BECAUSE THEY TEACH AND EDUCATE THEIR OWN! Now comes Islam. Not as old as Christianity but teaches a set of morals based on deception and lies, subjugation and coercion, as well as a host of other morally opposed standards wrapped in peace and tolerance. And constant mention of taxation, tithing, alms, and MONEY! Why should I turn away from other lies to embrace yet another and greater lie than the others? Now Kahn, considering the weapons of war we have these days when the earth is washed in fire what makes you think for one second Allah is going to spare ANYONE the radiation poisoning, the bio weapons we WILL unleash on each other, the chemical pollution, let alone just the raw scope of destruction we WILL bring with an all out fur ball? What makes you even think for a second those that teach you actually have truthfully spoken with God? If God is so powerful why doe he not speak plainly to you? People of your own faith pursue Nuclear Weapons for their final solution to the rest of us. What they forget is that the poison of these weapons spreads so in cleansing the world of the rest of us your own sword will cut you all down as well! Think hard on that my friend. You are calling out the wrong person! Do not assume because I try to come in peace I am weak. I am willing to put fists behind my words. How about you? Wanna kick a sleeping dragon? I deeply believe ALL of your faith practices are wrong, there is no "One way," and I sure in the hell will not be forced to submit to god or anyone else! A real free man is one willing to fight to be free! So feel any sense of justice when that 14 year old girl got shot in the head by Taliban in Pakistan? Or were you appalled like the rest of us? or are you really one of those people who felt she got what she had coming to her? All she did was protest a lack of education... So this is YOUR religion of love? This is YOUR Jihad? Murdering children? Terrorizing people in the name of god? WHY? Please answer me WHY this violence is called for. Lets see the man you REALLY are. What Islam does not tell you is WE made up the Devil. WE ARE the devil. You, me, the guy you hang out with and ***** about Jews and America too. All humanity is the Devil. But YOU probably will forever refuse to see that until one day you are standing there with a stone in your hand after helping your friends kill some poor woman who was a rape victim and called a adulteress instead! Wait until the day you have innocent blood on your hands. There is no such thing as forgiveness in Islam is there? If you steal an innocent life what is the punishment for that? I see you one day killing someone in a religiously manipulated frenzy and then regretting it later and you will realize innocent blood does not come off at all no matter how hard you try to wash it off. That is because if there really is a God you know you can't lie to him! So for all of this I can say something you cannot my friend, "I HAVE A CLEAN CONSCIOUS! I DON'T HURT PEOPLE!" I have hurt people in the past and I will not lie about it. At least I can shake hands with the devil and admit I had a rough go of it in this life but if I must pay a penance then I will. I know I have not done anything a god of love would be angry at me for. But I am not trying to cover up doing bad things in my life with good deeds. I just try to live a good life and roll with the punches. I reserve getting real nasty when I am backed into a corner. And I think that is a major way for a lot of Americans. it is just you want to hate someone so bad so it happens to be the Jews. On a personal note, how can you dare claim Islam is about tolerating anything when here you are expressing hate for Jews? People here want to believe 9/11 was a CIA conspiracy! They want to believe it was big banking and Globalists. It was an Islamic attack and they drew blood from the wrong people. Period... Our own politicians profited from this in their own ways, so did yours! In the end it is all about power and money! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you guys sure you are not all closeted, self-hating homosexuals?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you guys sure you are not all closeted, self-hating homosexuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AndyBgood
on
Tue 10/16/12 02:52 PM
|
|
Are you guys sure you are not all closeted, self-hating homosexuals? I agree with Conrad_73 because from where I stand those are fighting words... I am pretty sure you do owe at least two of us an explanation! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abrogation and Jihad How does the theological debate over abrogation impact contemporary policy formulation? While not all terrorism is rooted in Islam, the religion is an enabler for many. It is wrong to assume that more extreme interpretations of religion are illegitimate. Statements that there is no compulsion in religion and that jihad is primarily about internal struggle and not about holy war may receive applause in university lecture halls and diplomatic board rooms, but they misunderstand the importance of abrogation in Islamic theology. It is important to acknowledge that what university scholars believe, and what most Muslims—or more extreme Muslims—believe are two different things. For many Islamists and radical Muslims, abrogation is real and what the West calls terror is, indeed, just. During the lifetime of Muhammad, the Islamic community passed through three stages. In the beginning from 610 until 622, God commanded restraint. As the Muslims relocated to Medina (623-26), God permitted Muslims only to fight in a defensive war. However, in the last six years of Muhammad's life (626-32), God permitted Muslims to fight an aggressive war first against polytheists,[52] and later against monotheists like the Jews of Khaybar.[53] Once Muhammad was given permission to kill in the name of God, he instigated battle. Chapter 9 of the Qur'an, in English called "Ultimatum," is the most important concerning the issues of abrogation and jihad against unbelievers. It is the only chapter that does not begin "in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful."[54] Commentators agree that Muhammad received this revelation in 631, the year before his death, when he had returned to Mecca and was at his strongest.[55] Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari (810-70), compiler of one of the most authoritative collections of the hadith, said that "Ultimatum" was the last chapter revealed to Muhammad[56] although others suggest it might have been penultimate. Regardless, coming at or near the very end of Muhammad's life, "Ultimatum" trumps earlier revelations. Because this chapter contains violent passages, it abrogates previous peaceful content. Muhsin Khan, the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari, says God revealed "Ultimatum" in order to discard restraint and to command Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam or until they pay religious taxes. So, at first aggressive fighting was forbidden; it later became permissible (2:190) and subsequently obligatory (9:5).[57] This "verse of the sword" abrogated, canceled, and replaced 124 verses that called for tolerance, compassion, and peace.[58] Suyuti said that everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish God's kingdom on earth. Prior to receiving "Ultimatum," Muhammad had reached agreements with various Arab tribes. But when God gave Muhammad a revelation (2:190-2), Muhammad felt justified in breaking his cease-fire. For Isma'il bin Kathir (1301-73), a student of Ibn Taymiyya and an influential Qur'an interpreter in his own right, it is clear: As jihad involves death and the killing of men, God draws attention to the fact that disbelief, polytheism, and avoidance of God's path as shown by the Qur'an are worse than killing them.[59] This creates license for future generations of Muslims to kill non-Muslims solely on the basis of their refusal to accept Islam. According to Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Chapter 9:5, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first caliph, used this and other verses to validate fighting anyone who either did not pay religious taxes to the Muslims or convert to Islam. Ibn ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, one of the hadith transmitters, quoted Muhammad as saying, "I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God." He testified that Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, an authentic transmitter of hadiths, said that the verse of the sword "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term." ‘Awfi cited Ibn ‘Abbas, who argued that "Ultimatum" obviated earlier peace treaties.[60] The Shafi‘i school took this as a justification for killing anyone who abandoned prayer and for fighting anyone who refused to pay increased religious minority taxes.[61] Such interpretations resonate. Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti, a contemporary Al-Azhar University scholar, wrote that "the verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that holy war, which is demanded in Islamic law, is not a defensive war because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all holy wars. Its goal is the exaltation of the word of God, the construction of Islamic society, and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth regardless of the means. It is legal to carry on an offensive holy war."[62] Defensive warfare in Islam is nothing but a phase of the Islamic mission that the Prophet practiced. After that, it was followed by another phase, that is, calling all people to embrace Islam. Even for People of the Book, there can be no role except conversion to Islam or subjugation to Muslim rule. Hence, Muhammad's statement, "They would not invade you, but you invade them."[63] Modern Revisionism of Jihad David Powers, a well-known researcher of classical Islam, agreed that 9:5 abrogates no less than 124 verses that command or imply anything less than a total offensive against the non-believers. However, he says the verse is itself considered to be abrogated by the conditional clause with which it concludes: "But if they repent and perform the prayer and pay the alms, then let them go their way."[64] But such a condition is not magnanimous: When infidels repent and perform the Muslim prayer and pay alms, it means they have become Muslims. Once they are Muslims, there is no need to slay them. The clause thus becomes more coercive than conditional. It suggests than a non-Muslim must convert to Islam or be slain. Still, no verse is more frequently cited by contemporary Muslims preachers and analysts to depict Islam as peaceful and compassionate as 2:256, "Let there be no compulsion in religion." For Sheikh Abdur Rahman, the chief justice of Pakistan, this verse is one of the most important, containing a charter of freedom of conscience unparalleled in the religious annals of mankind.[65] Muhammad offered this verse in his first year of residence in Medina when he needed the Jews' support. Nahhas, with the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas, said: "Scholars differed concerning 2:256. Some said it has been abrogated by 9:73 for the Prophet compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fight those that had no alternative but to surrender to Islam. Other scholars said that 2:256 had not been abrogated concerning the People of the Book. It is only the infidels who are compelled to embrace Islam."[66] Suyuti does not see 2:256 abrogated by 9:73 but rather interprets 9:73 as a case of postponing the fight until Muslims become strong. He argues that when Muslims were weak, God commanded them to be patient.[67] This is also the case of sura 9:29, which deals with Jews and Christians. Fighting them is mentioned after the clarification regarding fighting the idolaters (9:5). This verse (9:29) was revealed when Muhammad was commanded to fight the Byzantines and prepared the expedition to Tabuk. Ibn Kathir declared: The order is to fight the People of the Book until they pay the jizyah (protection tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad because all prophets commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him even though he is the "mightiest of all messengers because it suits their desires and lusts, and because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all prophets." Ibn Kathir continues: "This honorable verse was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book. After the pagans were defeated, the people entered God's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control."[68] The issue of abrogation in Islam is critical to understanding both jihad and da'wa, the propagation of Islam. Some Muslims may preach tolerance and argue that jihad refers only to an internal, peaceful struggle to better oneself. Western commentators can convince themselves that such teachings are correct. However, for learned Muslim scholars and populist leaders, such notions are or should be risible. They recognize that, in practice, there is compulsion in Islam. They take seriously the notion that the Qur'an teaches not just tolerance among religions, but tolerance among religions on the terms of Islam. To understand the challenge of the current Islamist revival, it is crucial for non-Muslims and moderate Muslims alike to recognize that interpretation of Islamic doctrine can have two faces, and that the Medinan face may very well continue to overshadow the Meccan face for a major portion, if not the majority, of contemporary Muslims. http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam Abrogation- this is a concept which interests me. For example, I had previous asked people their opinion on Maricon, as a foolower of Paul, he stated, as many Xians do, that Jesus is a new covenant and that he ABROGATED the law of the Old Testament. He gave two new commandments. However, what I constantly see is Xians falling back on the law to spew hate on people, ie- gays, etc. It appears to me that humans are naturally hated and violent and will use any excuse or abrogation to fulfill this natual tendency? And your opinion on this is? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abrogation and Jihad How does the theological debate over abrogation impact contemporary policy formulation? While not all terrorism is rooted in Islam, the religion is an enabler for many. It is wrong to assume that more extreme interpretations of religion are illegitimate. Statements that there is no compulsion in religion and that jihad is primarily about internal struggle and not about holy war may receive applause in university lecture halls and diplomatic board rooms, but they misunderstand the importance of abrogation in Islamic theology. It is important to acknowledge that what university scholars believe, and what most Muslims—or more extreme Muslims—believe are two different things. For many Islamists and radical Muslims, abrogation is real and what the West calls terror is, indeed, just. During the lifetime of Muhammad, the Islamic community passed through three stages. In the beginning from 610 until 622, God commanded restraint. As the Muslims relocated to Medina (623-26), God permitted Muslims only to fight in a defensive war. However, in the last six years of Muhammad's life (626-32), God permitted Muslims to fight an aggressive war first against polytheists,[52] and later against monotheists like the Jews of Khaybar.[53] Once Muhammad was given permission to kill in the name of God, he instigated battle. Chapter 9 of the Qur'an, in English called "Ultimatum," is the most important concerning the issues of abrogation and jihad against unbelievers. It is the only chapter that does not begin "in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful."[54] Commentators agree that Muhammad received this revelation in 631, the year before his death, when he had returned to Mecca and was at his strongest.[55] Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari (810-70), compiler of one of the most authoritative collections of the hadith, said that "Ultimatum" was the last chapter revealed to Muhammad[56] although others suggest it might have been penultimate. Regardless, coming at or near the very end of Muhammad's life, "Ultimatum" trumps earlier revelations. Because this chapter contains violent passages, it abrogates previous peaceful content. Muhsin Khan, the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari, says God revealed "Ultimatum" in order to discard restraint and to command Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam or until they pay religious taxes. So, at first aggressive fighting was forbidden; it later became permissible (2:190) and subsequently obligatory (9:5).[57] This "verse of the sword" abrogated, canceled, and replaced 124 verses that called for tolerance, compassion, and peace.[58] Suyuti said that everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish God's kingdom on earth. Prior to receiving "Ultimatum," Muhammad had reached agreements with various Arab tribes. But when God gave Muhammad a revelation (2:190-2), Muhammad felt justified in breaking his cease-fire. For Isma'il bin Kathir (1301-73), a student of Ibn Taymiyya and an influential Qur'an interpreter in his own right, it is clear: As jihad involves death and the killing of men, God draws attention to the fact that disbelief, polytheism, and avoidance of God's path as shown by the Qur'an are worse than killing them.[59] This creates license for future generations of Muslims to kill non-Muslims solely on the basis of their refusal to accept Islam. According to Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Chapter 9:5, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first caliph, used this and other verses to validate fighting anyone who either did not pay religious taxes to the Muslims or convert to Islam. Ibn ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, one of the hadith transmitters, quoted Muhammad as saying, "I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God." He testified that Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, an authentic transmitter of hadiths, said that the verse of the sword "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term." ‘Awfi cited Ibn ‘Abbas, who argued that "Ultimatum" obviated earlier peace treaties.[60] The Shafi‘i school took this as a justification for killing anyone who abandoned prayer and for fighting anyone who refused to pay increased religious minority taxes.[61] Such interpretations resonate. Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti, a contemporary Al-Azhar University scholar, wrote that "the verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that holy war, which is demanded in Islamic law, is not a defensive war because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all holy wars. Its goal is the exaltation of the word of God, the construction of Islamic society, and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth regardless of the means. It is legal to carry on an offensive holy war."[62] Defensive warfare in Islam is nothing but a phase of the Islamic mission that the Prophet practiced. After that, it was followed by another phase, that is, calling all people to embrace Islam. Even for People of the Book, there can be no role except conversion to Islam or subjugation to Muslim rule. Hence, Muhammad's statement, "They would not invade you, but you invade them."[63] Modern Revisionism of Jihad David Powers, a well-known researcher of classical Islam, agreed that 9:5 abrogates no less than 124 verses that command or imply anything less than a total offensive against the non-believers. However, he says the verse is itself considered to be abrogated by the conditional clause with which it concludes: "But if they repent and perform the prayer and pay the alms, then let them go their way."[64] But such a condition is not magnanimous: When infidels repent and perform the Muslim prayer and pay alms, it means they have become Muslims. Once they are Muslims, there is no need to slay them. The clause thus becomes more coercive than conditional. It suggests than a non-Muslim must convert to Islam or be slain. Still, no verse is more frequently cited by contemporary Muslims preachers and analysts to depict Islam as peaceful and compassionate as 2:256, "Let there be no compulsion in religion." For Sheikh Abdur Rahman, the chief justice of Pakistan, this verse is one of the most important, containing a charter of freedom of conscience unparalleled in the religious annals of mankind.[65] Muhammad offered this verse in his first year of residence in Medina when he needed the Jews' support. Nahhas, with the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas, said: "Scholars differed concerning 2:256. Some said it has been abrogated by 9:73 for the Prophet compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fight those that had no alternative but to surrender to Islam. Other scholars said that 2:256 had not been abrogated concerning the People of the Book. It is only the infidels who are compelled to embrace Islam."[66] Suyuti does not see 2:256 abrogated by 9:73 but rather interprets 9:73 as a case of postponing the fight until Muslims become strong. He argues that when Muslims were weak, God commanded them to be patient.[67] This is also the case of sura 9:29, which deals with Jews and Christians. Fighting them is mentioned after the clarification regarding fighting the idolaters (9:5). This verse (9:29) was revealed when Muhammad was commanded to fight the Byzantines and prepared the expedition to Tabuk. Ibn Kathir declared: The order is to fight the People of the Book until they pay the jizyah (protection tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad because all prophets commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him even though he is the "mightiest of all messengers because it suits their desires and lusts, and because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all prophets." Ibn Kathir continues: "This honorable verse was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book. After the pagans were defeated, the people entered God's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control."[68] The issue of abrogation in Islam is critical to understanding both jihad and da'wa, the propagation of Islam. Some Muslims may preach tolerance and argue that jihad refers only to an internal, peaceful struggle to better oneself. Western commentators can convince themselves that such teachings are correct. However, for learned Muslim scholars and populist leaders, such notions are or should be risible. They recognize that, in practice, there is compulsion in Islam. They take seriously the notion that the Qur'an teaches not just tolerance among religions, but tolerance among religions on the terms of Islam. To understand the challenge of the current Islamist revival, it is crucial for non-Muslims and moderate Muslims alike to recognize that interpretation of Islamic doctrine can have two faces, and that the Medinan face may very well continue to overshadow the Meccan face for a major portion, if not the majority, of contemporary Muslims. http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam Abrogation- this is a concept which interests me. For example, I had previous asked people their opinion on Maricon, as a foolower of Paul, he stated, as many Xians do, that Jesus is a new covenant and that he ABROGATED the law of the Old Testament. He gave two new commandments. However, what I constantly see is Xians falling back on the law to spew hate on people, ie- gays, etc. It appears to me that humans are naturally hated and violent and will use any excuse or abrogation to fulfill this natual tendency? And your opinion on this is? However, what I constantly see is Xians falling back on the law to spew hate on people, ie- gays, etc. It appears to me that humans are naturally hated and violent and will use any excuse or abrogation to fulfill this natual tendency? And your opinion on this is? "Christians" spew no hatred on anyone. Just cause one points out a "fault" in another, does that mean they hate them? Or are lovingly trying to lend a guiding hand? It is just as "wrong" to be gay as it is to lie or steal or even treat others disrespectfully and not so much in a "loving" way. And even though in the Christian faith, homosexuality is a sin, does not mean homosexuals are any less of a person, or any more "evil" of a person. This is where "Judge not, less ye be judged" plays it's part. We may not agree with their choice, but all in all if it is a true follower of God, Jesus Christ, then they will not treat a homosexual any different then they would say, their preacher, or brothers/sisters in Christ, or anyone else for that matter. We are all God's, regardless if we are gay, black, white, straight, tall, short, ect. We were all bought with a price. Now not saying everyone and all will have the pleasure in the glory's of Heaven, that is solely up to the discretion of God. But nevertheless, we all have our own fair chance at having a piece of that gift. Think this "homosexual" thing has been blown way out of proportion. Especially with the increasing publicised side of homosexuality. Think part of it is and why people frown on this, is that in our culture and or country/laws in itself, we the people make those. So with laws against homosexuality or just cultural beliefs/feelings towards the preference, those can be disputed and worked out to better "suite" anyone and everyone. But that's not the case with God's laws. He is not running a democracy so to speak. And it offends those that this conflicts with their wants. And just for record, this is not a bash or anything specific to do with homosexuality. Just a general view of what I see. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abrogation and Jihad How does the theological debate over abrogation impact contemporary policy formulation? While not all terrorism is rooted in Islam, the religion is an enabler for many. It is wrong to assume that more extreme interpretations of religion are illegitimate. Statements that there is no compulsion in religion and that jihad is primarily about internal struggle and not about holy war may receive applause in university lecture halls and diplomatic board rooms, but they misunderstand the importance of abrogation in Islamic theology. It is important to acknowledge that what university scholars believe, and what most Muslims—or more extreme Muslims—believe are two different things. For many Islamists and radical Muslims, abrogation is real and what the West calls terror is, indeed, just. During the lifetime of Muhammad, the Islamic community passed through three stages. In the beginning from 610 until 622, God commanded restraint. As the Muslims relocated to Medina (623-26), God permitted Muslims only to fight in a defensive war. However, in the last six years of Muhammad's life (626-32), God permitted Muslims to fight an aggressive war first against polytheists,[52] and later against monotheists like the Jews of Khaybar.[53] Once Muhammad was given permission to kill in the name of God, he instigated battle. Chapter 9 of the Qur'an, in English called "Ultimatum," is the most important concerning the issues of abrogation and jihad against unbelievers. It is the only chapter that does not begin "in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful."[54] Commentators agree that Muhammad received this revelation in 631, the year before his death, when he had returned to Mecca and was at his strongest.[55] Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari (810-70), compiler of one of the most authoritative collections of the hadith, said that "Ultimatum" was the last chapter revealed to Muhammad[56] although others suggest it might have been penultimate. Regardless, coming at or near the very end of Muhammad's life, "Ultimatum" trumps earlier revelations. Because this chapter contains violent passages, it abrogates previous peaceful content. Muhsin Khan, the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari, says God revealed "Ultimatum" in order to discard restraint and to command Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam or until they pay religious taxes. So, at first aggressive fighting was forbidden; it later became permissible (2:190) and subsequently obligatory (9:5).[57] This "verse of the sword" abrogated, canceled, and replaced 124 verses that called for tolerance, compassion, and peace.[58] Suyuti said that everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish God's kingdom on earth. Prior to receiving "Ultimatum," Muhammad had reached agreements with various Arab tribes. But when God gave Muhammad a revelation (2:190-2), Muhammad felt justified in breaking his cease-fire. For Isma'il bin Kathir (1301-73), a student of Ibn Taymiyya and an influential Qur'an interpreter in his own right, it is clear: As jihad involves death and the killing of men, God draws attention to the fact that disbelief, polytheism, and avoidance of God's path as shown by the Qur'an are worse than killing them.[59] This creates license for future generations of Muslims to kill non-Muslims solely on the basis of their refusal to accept Islam. According to Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Chapter 9:5, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first caliph, used this and other verses to validate fighting anyone who either did not pay religious taxes to the Muslims or convert to Islam. Ibn ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, one of the hadith transmitters, quoted Muhammad as saying, "I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God." He testified that Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, an authentic transmitter of hadiths, said that the verse of the sword "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term." ‘Awfi cited Ibn ‘Abbas, who argued that "Ultimatum" obviated earlier peace treaties.[60] The Shafi‘i school took this as a justification for killing anyone who abandoned prayer and for fighting anyone who refused to pay increased religious minority taxes.[61] Such interpretations resonate. Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti, a contemporary Al-Azhar University scholar, wrote that "the verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that holy war, which is demanded in Islamic law, is not a defensive war because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all holy wars. Its goal is the exaltation of the word of God, the construction of Islamic society, and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth regardless of the means. It is legal to carry on an offensive holy war."[62] Defensive warfare in Islam is nothing but a phase of the Islamic mission that the Prophet practiced. After that, it was followed by another phase, that is, calling all people to embrace Islam. Even for People of the Book, there can be no role except conversion to Islam or subjugation to Muslim rule. Hence, Muhammad's statement, "They would not invade you, but you invade them."[63] Modern Revisionism of Jihad David Powers, a well-known researcher of classical Islam, agreed that 9:5 abrogates no less than 124 verses that command or imply anything less than a total offensive against the non-believers. However, he says the verse is itself considered to be abrogated by the conditional clause with which it concludes: "But if they repent and perform the prayer and pay the alms, then let them go their way."[64] But such a condition is not magnanimous: When infidels repent and perform the Muslim prayer and pay alms, it means they have become Muslims. Once they are Muslims, there is no need to slay them. The clause thus becomes more coercive than conditional. It suggests than a non-Muslim must convert to Islam or be slain. Still, no verse is more frequently cited by contemporary Muslims preachers and analysts to depict Islam as peaceful and compassionate as 2:256, "Let there be no compulsion in religion." For Sheikh Abdur Rahman, the chief justice of Pakistan, this verse is one of the most important, containing a charter of freedom of conscience unparalleled in the religious annals of mankind.[65] Muhammad offered this verse in his first year of residence in Medina when he needed the Jews' support. Nahhas, with the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas, said: "Scholars differed concerning 2:256. Some said it has been abrogated by 9:73 for the Prophet compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fight those that had no alternative but to surrender to Islam. Other scholars said that 2:256 had not been abrogated concerning the People of the Book. It is only the infidels who are compelled to embrace Islam."[66] Suyuti does not see 2:256 abrogated by 9:73 but rather interprets 9:73 as a case of postponing the fight until Muslims become strong. He argues that when Muslims were weak, God commanded them to be patient.[67] This is also the case of sura 9:29, which deals with Jews and Christians. Fighting them is mentioned after the clarification regarding fighting the idolaters (9:5). This verse (9:29) was revealed when Muhammad was commanded to fight the Byzantines and prepared the expedition to Tabuk. Ibn Kathir declared: The order is to fight the People of the Book until they pay the jizyah (protection tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad because all prophets commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him even though he is the "mightiest of all messengers because it suits their desires and lusts, and because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all prophets." Ibn Kathir continues: "This honorable verse was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book. After the pagans were defeated, the people entered God's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control."[68] The issue of abrogation in Islam is critical to understanding both jihad and da'wa, the propagation of Islam. Some Muslims may preach tolerance and argue that jihad refers only to an internal, peaceful struggle to better oneself. Western commentators can convince themselves that such teachings are correct. However, for learned Muslim scholars and populist leaders, such notions are or should be risible. They recognize that, in practice, there is compulsion in Islam. They take seriously the notion that the Qur'an teaches not just tolerance among religions, but tolerance among religions on the terms of Islam. To understand the challenge of the current Islamist revival, it is crucial for non-Muslims and moderate Muslims alike to recognize that interpretation of Islamic doctrine can have two faces, and that the Medinan face may very well continue to overshadow the Meccan face for a major portion, if not the majority, of contemporary Muslims. http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam Abrogation- this is a concept which interests me. For example, I had previous asked people their opinion on Maricon, as a foolower of Paul, he stated, as many Xians do, that Jesus is a new covenant and that he ABROGATED the law of the Old Testament. He gave two new commandments. However, what I constantly see is Xians falling back on the law to spew hate on people, ie- gays, etc. It appears to me that humans are naturally hated and violent and will use any excuse or abrogation to fulfill this natual tendency? And your opinion on this is? However, what I constantly see is Xians falling back on the law to spew hate on people, ie- gays, etc. It appears to me that humans are naturally hated and violent and will use any excuse or abrogation to fulfill this natual tendency? And your opinion on this is? "Christians" spew no hatred on anyone. Just cause one points out a "fault" in another, does that mean they hate them? Or are lovingly trying to lend a guiding hand? It is just as "wrong" to be gay as it is to lie or steal or even treat others disrespectfully and not so much in a "loving" way. And even though in the Christian faith, homosexuality is a sin, does not mean homosexuals are any less of a person, or any more "evil" of a person. This is where "Judge not, less ye be judged" plays it's part. We may not agree with their choice, but all in all if it is a true follower of God, Jesus Christ, then they will not treat a homosexual any different then they would say, their preacher, or brothers/sisters in Christ, or anyone else for that matter. We are all God's, regardless if we are gay, black, white, straight, tall, short, ect. We were all bought with a price. Now not saying everyone and all will have the pleasure in the glory's of Heaven, that is solely up to the discretion of God. But nevertheless, we all have our own fair chance at having a piece of that gift. Think this "homosexual" thing has been blown way out of proportion. Especially with the increasing publicised side of homosexuality. Think part of it is and why people frown on this, is that in our culture and or country/laws in itself, we the people make those. So with laws against homosexuality or just cultural beliefs/feelings towards the preference, those can be disputed and worked out to better "suite" anyone and everyone. But that's not the case with God's laws. He is not running a democracy so to speak. And it offends those that this conflicts with their wants. And just for record, this is not a bash or anything specific to do with homosexuality. Just a general view of what I see. You Guys really need to progress into the 21th Century! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abrogation and Jihad How does the theological debate over abrogation impact contemporary policy formulation? While not all terrorism is rooted in Islam, the religion is an enabler for many. It is wrong to assume that more extreme interpretations of religion are illegitimate. Statements that there is no compulsion in religion and that jihad is primarily about internal struggle and not about holy war may receive applause in university lecture halls and diplomatic board rooms, but they misunderstand the importance of abrogation in Islamic theology. It is important to acknowledge that what university scholars believe, and what most Muslims—or more extreme Muslims—believe are two different things. For many Islamists and radical Muslims, abrogation is real and what the West calls terror is, indeed, just. During the lifetime of Muhammad, the Islamic community passed through three stages. In the beginning from 610 until 622, God commanded restraint. As the Muslims relocated to Medina (623-26), God permitted Muslims only to fight in a defensive war. However, in the last six years of Muhammad's life (626-32), God permitted Muslims to fight an aggressive war first against polytheists,[52] and later against monotheists like the Jews of Khaybar.[53] Once Muhammad was given permission to kill in the name of God, he instigated battle. Chapter 9 of the Qur'an, in English called "Ultimatum," is the most important concerning the issues of abrogation and jihad against unbelievers. It is the only chapter that does not begin "in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful."[54] Commentators agree that Muhammad received this revelation in 631, the year before his death, when he had returned to Mecca and was at his strongest.[55] Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari (810-70), compiler of one of the most authoritative collections of the hadith, said that "Ultimatum" was the last chapter revealed to Muhammad[56] although others suggest it might have been penultimate. Regardless, coming at or near the very end of Muhammad's life, "Ultimatum" trumps earlier revelations. Because this chapter contains violent passages, it abrogates previous peaceful content. Muhsin Khan, the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari, says God revealed "Ultimatum" in order to discard restraint and to command Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam or until they pay religious taxes. So, at first aggressive fighting was forbidden; it later became permissible (2:190) and subsequently obligatory (9:5).[57] This "verse of the sword" abrogated, canceled, and replaced 124 verses that called for tolerance, compassion, and peace.[58] Suyuti said that everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish God's kingdom on earth. Prior to receiving "Ultimatum," Muhammad had reached agreements with various Arab tribes. But when God gave Muhammad a revelation (2:190-2), Muhammad felt justified in breaking his cease-fire. For Isma'il bin Kathir (1301-73), a student of Ibn Taymiyya and an influential Qur'an interpreter in his own right, it is clear: As jihad involves death and the killing of men, God draws attention to the fact that disbelief, polytheism, and avoidance of God's path as shown by the Qur'an are worse than killing them.[59] This creates license for future generations of Muslims to kill non-Muslims solely on the basis of their refusal to accept Islam. According to Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Chapter 9:5, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first caliph, used this and other verses to validate fighting anyone who either did not pay religious taxes to the Muslims or convert to Islam. Ibn ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, one of the hadith transmitters, quoted Muhammad as saying, "I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God." He testified that Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, an authentic transmitter of hadiths, said that the verse of the sword "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term." ‘Awfi cited Ibn ‘Abbas, who argued that "Ultimatum" obviated earlier peace treaties.[60] The Shafi‘i school took this as a justification for killing anyone who abandoned prayer and for fighting anyone who refused to pay increased religious minority taxes.[61] Such interpretations resonate. Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti, a contemporary Al-Azhar University scholar, wrote that "the verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that holy war, which is demanded in Islamic law, is not a defensive war because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all holy wars. Its goal is the exaltation of the word of God, the construction of Islamic society, and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth regardless of the means. It is legal to carry on an offensive holy war."[62] Defensive warfare in Islam is nothing but a phase of the Islamic mission that the Prophet practiced. After that, it was followed by another phase, that is, calling all people to embrace Islam. Even for People of the Book, there can be no role except conversion to Islam or subjugation to Muslim rule. Hence, Muhammad's statement, "They would not invade you, but you invade them."[63] Modern Revisionism of Jihad David Powers, a well-known researcher of classical Islam, agreed that 9:5 abrogates no less than 124 verses that command or imply anything less than a total offensive against the non-believers. However, he says the verse is itself considered to be abrogated by the conditional clause with which it concludes: "But if they repent and perform the prayer and pay the alms, then let them go their way."[64] But such a condition is not magnanimous: When infidels repent and perform the Muslim prayer and pay alms, it means they have become Muslims. Once they are Muslims, there is no need to slay them. The clause thus becomes more coercive than conditional. It suggests than a non-Muslim must convert to Islam or be slain. Still, no verse is more frequently cited by contemporary Muslims preachers and analysts to depict Islam as peaceful and compassionate as 2:256, "Let there be no compulsion in religion." For Sheikh Abdur Rahman, the chief justice of Pakistan, this verse is one of the most important, containing a charter of freedom of conscience unparalleled in the religious annals of mankind.[65] Muhammad offered this verse in his first year of residence in Medina when he needed the Jews' support. Nahhas, with the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas, said: "Scholars differed concerning 2:256. Some said it has been abrogated by 9:73 for the Prophet compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fight those that had no alternative but to surrender to Islam. Other scholars said that 2:256 had not been abrogated concerning the People of the Book. It is only the infidels who are compelled to embrace Islam."[66] Suyuti does not see 2:256 abrogated by 9:73 but rather interprets 9:73 as a case of postponing the fight until Muslims become strong. He argues that when Muslims were weak, God commanded them to be patient.[67] This is also the case of sura 9:29, which deals with Jews and Christians. Fighting them is mentioned after the clarification regarding fighting the idolaters (9:5). This verse (9:29) was revealed when Muhammad was commanded to fight the Byzantines and prepared the expedition to Tabuk. Ibn Kathir declared: The order is to fight the People of the Book until they pay the jizyah (protection tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad because all prophets commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him even though he is the "mightiest of all messengers because it suits their desires and lusts, and because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all prophets." Ibn Kathir continues: "This honorable verse was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book. After the pagans were defeated, the people entered God's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control."[68] The issue of abrogation in Islam is critical to understanding both jihad and da'wa, the propagation of Islam. Some Muslims may preach tolerance and argue that jihad refers only to an internal, peaceful struggle to better oneself. Western commentators can convince themselves that such teachings are correct. However, for learned Muslim scholars and populist leaders, such notions are or should be risible. They recognize that, in practice, there is compulsion in Islam. They take seriously the notion that the Qur'an teaches not just tolerance among religions, but tolerance among religions on the terms of Islam. To understand the challenge of the current Islamist revival, it is crucial for non-Muslims and moderate Muslims alike to recognize that interpretation of Islamic doctrine can have two faces, and that the Medinan face may very well continue to overshadow the Meccan face for a major portion, if not the majority, of contemporary Muslims. http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam Abrogation- this is a concept which interests me. For example, I had previous asked people their opinion on Maricon, as a foolower of Paul, he stated, as many Xians do, that Jesus is a new covenant and that he ABROGATED the law of the Old Testament. He gave two new commandments. However, what I constantly see is Xians falling back on the law to spew hate on people, ie- gays, etc. It appears to me that humans are naturally hated and violent and will use any excuse or abrogation to fulfill this natual tendency? And your opinion on this is? However, what I constantly see is Xians falling back on the law to spew hate on people, ie- gays, etc. It appears to me that humans are naturally hated and violent and will use any excuse or abrogation to fulfill this natual tendency? And your opinion on this is? "Christians" spew no hatred on anyone. Just cause one points out a "fault" in another, does that mean they hate them? Or are lovingly trying to lend a guiding hand? It is just as "wrong" to be gay as it is to lie or steal or even treat others disrespectfully and not so much in a "loving" way. And even though in the Christian faith, homosexuality is a sin, does not mean homosexuals are any less of a person, or any more "evil" of a person. This is where "Judge not, less ye be judged" plays it's part. We may not agree with their choice, but all in all if it is a true follower of God, Jesus Christ, then they will not treat a homosexual any different then they would say, their preacher, or brothers/sisters in Christ, or anyone else for that matter. We are all God's, regardless if we are gay, black, white, straight, tall, short, ect. We were all bought with a price. Now not saying everyone and all will have the pleasure in the glory's of Heaven, that is solely up to the discretion of God. But nevertheless, we all have our own fair chance at having a piece of that gift. Think this "homosexual" thing has been blown way out of proportion. Especially with the increasing publicised side of homosexuality. Think part of it is and why people frown on this, is that in our culture and or country/laws in itself, we the people make those. So with laws against homosexuality or just cultural beliefs/feelings towards the preference, those can be disputed and worked out to better "suite" anyone and everyone. But that's not the case with God's laws. He is not running a democracy so to speak. And it offends those that this conflicts with their wants. And just for record, this is not a bash or anything specific to do with homosexuality. Just a general view of what I see. You Guys really need to progress into the 21th Century! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abrogation and Jihad How does the theological debate over abrogation impact contemporary policy formulation? While not all terrorism is rooted in Islam, the religion is an enabler for many. It is wrong to assume that more extreme interpretations of religion are illegitimate. Statements that there is no compulsion in religion and that jihad is primarily about internal struggle and not about holy war may receive applause in university lecture halls and diplomatic board rooms, but they misunderstand the importance of abrogation in Islamic theology. It is important to acknowledge that what university scholars believe, and what most Muslims—or more extreme Muslims—believe are two different things. For many Islamists and radical Muslims, abrogation is real and what the West calls terror is, indeed, just. During the lifetime of Muhammad, the Islamic community passed through three stages. In the beginning from 610 until 622, God commanded restraint. As the Muslims relocated to Medina (623-26), God permitted Muslims only to fight in a defensive war. However, in the last six years of Muhammad's life (626-32), God permitted Muslims to fight an aggressive war first against polytheists,[52] and later against monotheists like the Jews of Khaybar.[53] Once Muhammad was given permission to kill in the name of God, he instigated battle. Chapter 9 of the Qur'an, in English called "Ultimatum," is the most important concerning the issues of abrogation and jihad against unbelievers. It is the only chapter that does not begin "in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful."[54] Commentators agree that Muhammad received this revelation in 631, the year before his death, when he had returned to Mecca and was at his strongest.[55] Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari (810-70), compiler of one of the most authoritative collections of the hadith, said that "Ultimatum" was the last chapter revealed to Muhammad[56] although others suggest it might have been penultimate. Regardless, coming at or near the very end of Muhammad's life, "Ultimatum" trumps earlier revelations. Because this chapter contains violent passages, it abrogates previous peaceful content. Muhsin Khan, the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari, says God revealed "Ultimatum" in order to discard restraint and to command Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam or until they pay religious taxes. So, at first aggressive fighting was forbidden; it later became permissible (2:190) and subsequently obligatory (9:5).[57] This "verse of the sword" abrogated, canceled, and replaced 124 verses that called for tolerance, compassion, and peace.[58] Suyuti said that everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish God's kingdom on earth. Prior to receiving "Ultimatum," Muhammad had reached agreements with various Arab tribes. But when God gave Muhammad a revelation (2:190-2), Muhammad felt justified in breaking his cease-fire. For Isma'il bin Kathir (1301-73), a student of Ibn Taymiyya and an influential Qur'an interpreter in his own right, it is clear: As jihad involves death and the killing of men, God draws attention to the fact that disbelief, polytheism, and avoidance of God's path as shown by the Qur'an are worse than killing them.[59] This creates license for future generations of Muslims to kill non-Muslims solely on the basis of their refusal to accept Islam. According to Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Chapter 9:5, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first caliph, used this and other verses to validate fighting anyone who either did not pay religious taxes to the Muslims or convert to Islam. Ibn ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, one of the hadith transmitters, quoted Muhammad as saying, "I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God." He testified that Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, an authentic transmitter of hadiths, said that the verse of the sword "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term." ‘Awfi cited Ibn ‘Abbas, who argued that "Ultimatum" obviated earlier peace treaties.[60] The Shafi‘i school took this as a justification for killing anyone who abandoned prayer and for fighting anyone who refused to pay increased religious minority taxes.[61] Such interpretations resonate. Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti, a contemporary Al-Azhar University scholar, wrote that "the verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that holy war, which is demanded in Islamic law, is not a defensive war because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all holy wars. Its goal is the exaltation of the word of God, the construction of Islamic society, and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth regardless of the means. It is legal to carry on an offensive holy war."[62] Defensive warfare in Islam is nothing but a phase of the Islamic mission that the Prophet practiced. After that, it was followed by another phase, that is, calling all people to embrace Islam. Even for People of the Book, there can be no role except conversion to Islam or subjugation to Muslim rule. Hence, Muhammad's statement, "They would not invade you, but you invade them."[63] Modern Revisionism of Jihad David Powers, a well-known researcher of classical Islam, agreed that 9:5 abrogates no less than 124 verses that command or imply anything less than a total offensive against the non-believers. However, he says the verse is itself considered to be abrogated by the conditional clause with which it concludes: "But if they repent and perform the prayer and pay the alms, then let them go their way."[64] But such a condition is not magnanimous: When infidels repent and perform the Muslim prayer and pay alms, it means they have become Muslims. Once they are Muslims, there is no need to slay them. The clause thus becomes more coercive than conditional. It suggests than a non-Muslim must convert to Islam or be slain. Still, no verse is more frequently cited by contemporary Muslims preachers and analysts to depict Islam as peaceful and compassionate as 2:256, "Let there be no compulsion in religion." For Sheikh Abdur Rahman, the chief justice of Pakistan, this verse is one of the most important, containing a charter of freedom of conscience unparalleled in the religious annals of mankind.[65] Muhammad offered this verse in his first year of residence in Medina when he needed the Jews' support. Nahhas, with the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas, said: "Scholars differed concerning 2:256. Some said it has been abrogated by 9:73 for the Prophet compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fight those that had no alternative but to surrender to Islam. Other scholars said that 2:256 had not been abrogated concerning the People of the Book. It is only the infidels who are compelled to embrace Islam."[66] Suyuti does not see 2:256 abrogated by 9:73 but rather interprets 9:73 as a case of postponing the fight until Muslims become strong. He argues that when Muslims were weak, God commanded them to be patient.[67] This is also the case of sura 9:29, which deals with Jews and Christians. Fighting them is mentioned after the clarification regarding fighting the idolaters (9:5). This verse (9:29) was revealed when Muhammad was commanded to fight the Byzantines and prepared the expedition to Tabuk. Ibn Kathir declared: The order is to fight the People of the Book until they pay the jizyah (protection tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad because all prophets commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him even though he is the "mightiest of all messengers because it suits their desires and lusts, and because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all prophets." Ibn Kathir continues: "This honorable verse was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book. After the pagans were defeated, the people entered God's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control."[68] The issue of abrogation in Islam is critical to understanding both jihad and da'wa, the propagation of Islam. Some Muslims may preach tolerance and argue that jihad refers only to an internal, peaceful struggle to better oneself. Western commentators can convince themselves that such teachings are correct. However, for learned Muslim scholars and populist leaders, such notions are or should be risible. They recognize that, in practice, there is compulsion in Islam. They take seriously the notion that the Qur'an teaches not just tolerance among religions, but tolerance among religions on the terms of Islam. To understand the challenge of the current Islamist revival, it is crucial for non-Muslims and moderate Muslims alike to recognize that interpretation of Islamic doctrine can have two faces, and that the Medinan face may very well continue to overshadow the Meccan face for a major portion, if not the majority, of contemporary Muslims. http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam Abrogation- this is a concept which interests me. For example, I had previous asked people their opinion on Maricon, as a foolower of Paul, he stated, as many Xians do, that Jesus is a new covenant and that he ABROGATED the law of the Old Testament. He gave two new commandments. However, what I constantly see is Xians falling back on the law to spew hate on people, ie- gays, etc. It appears to me that humans are naturally hated and violent and will use any excuse or abrogation to fulfill this natual tendency? And your opinion on this is? However, what I constantly see is Xians falling back on the law to spew hate on people, ie- gays, etc. It appears to me that humans are naturally hated and violent and will use any excuse or abrogation to fulfill this natual tendency? And your opinion on this is? "Christians" spew no hatred on anyone. Just cause one points out a "fault" in another, does that mean they hate them? Or are lovingly trying to lend a guiding hand? It is just as "wrong" to be gay as it is to lie or steal or even treat others disrespectfully and not so much in a "loving" way. And even though in the Christian faith, homosexuality is a sin, does not mean homosexuals are any less of a person, or any more "evil" of a person. This is where "Judge not, less ye be judged" plays it's part. We may not agree with their choice, but all in all if it is a true follower of God, Jesus Christ, then they will not treat a homosexual any different then they would say, their preacher, or brothers/sisters in Christ, or anyone else for that matter. We are all God's, regardless if we are gay, black, white, straight, tall, short, ect. We were all bought with a price. Now not saying everyone and all will have the pleasure in the glory's of Heaven, that is solely up to the discretion of God. But nevertheless, we all have our own fair chance at having a piece of that gift. Think this "homosexual" thing has been blown way out of proportion. Especially with the increasing publicised side of homosexuality. Think part of it is and why people frown on this, is that in our culture and or country/laws in itself, we the people make those. So with laws against homosexuality or just cultural beliefs/feelings towards the preference, those can be disputed and worked out to better "suite" anyone and everyone. But that's not the case with God's laws. He is not running a democracy so to speak. And it offends those that this conflicts with their wants. And just for record, this is not a bash or anything specific to do with homosexuality. Just a general view of what I see. You Guys really need to progress into the 21th Century! Homosexuality is a preference. Yes they have more chromosomes or whatever to influence that preference. But nevertheless, it is a choice. Being attracted to the same gender and homosexuality don't entirely mean the same thing. Being attracted to a person is not a choice, it is natural. But homosexuality in itself is the act of having sex between two or more of the same gender. That is where the choice lays. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abrogation and Jihad How does the theological debate over abrogation impact contemporary policy formulation? While not all terrorism is rooted in Islam, the religion is an enabler for many. It is wrong to assume that more extreme interpretations of religion are illegitimate. Statements that there is no compulsion in religion and that jihad is primarily about internal struggle and not about holy war may receive applause in university lecture halls and diplomatic board rooms, but they misunderstand the importance of abrogation in Islamic theology. It is important to acknowledge that what university scholars believe, and what most Muslims—or more extreme Muslims—believe are two different things. For many Islamists and radical Muslims, abrogation is real and what the West calls terror is, indeed, just. During the lifetime of Muhammad, the Islamic community passed through three stages. In the beginning from 610 until 622, God commanded restraint. As the Muslims relocated to Medina (623-26), God permitted Muslims only to fight in a defensive war. However, in the last six years of Muhammad's life (626-32), God permitted Muslims to fight an aggressive war first against polytheists,[52] and later against monotheists like the Jews of Khaybar.[53] Once Muhammad was given permission to kill in the name of God, he instigated battle. Chapter 9 of the Qur'an, in English called "Ultimatum," is the most important concerning the issues of abrogation and jihad against unbelievers. It is the only chapter that does not begin "in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful."[54] Commentators agree that Muhammad received this revelation in 631, the year before his death, when he had returned to Mecca and was at his strongest.[55] Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari (810-70), compiler of one of the most authoritative collections of the hadith, said that "Ultimatum" was the last chapter revealed to Muhammad[56] although others suggest it might have been penultimate. Regardless, coming at or near the very end of Muhammad's life, "Ultimatum" trumps earlier revelations. Because this chapter contains violent passages, it abrogates previous peaceful content. Muhsin Khan, the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari, says God revealed "Ultimatum" in order to discard restraint and to command Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam or until they pay religious taxes. So, at first aggressive fighting was forbidden; it later became permissible (2:190) and subsequently obligatory (9:5).[57] This "verse of the sword" abrogated, canceled, and replaced 124 verses that called for tolerance, compassion, and peace.[58] Suyuti said that everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish God's kingdom on earth. Prior to receiving "Ultimatum," Muhammad had reached agreements with various Arab tribes. But when God gave Muhammad a revelation (2:190-2), Muhammad felt justified in breaking his cease-fire. For Isma'il bin Kathir (1301-73), a student of Ibn Taymiyya and an influential Qur'an interpreter in his own right, it is clear: As jihad involves death and the killing of men, God draws attention to the fact that disbelief, polytheism, and avoidance of God's path as shown by the Qur'an are worse than killing them.[59] This creates license for future generations of Muslims to kill non-Muslims solely on the basis of their refusal to accept Islam. According to Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Chapter 9:5, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first caliph, used this and other verses to validate fighting anyone who either did not pay religious taxes to the Muslims or convert to Islam. Ibn ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, one of the hadith transmitters, quoted Muhammad as saying, "I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God." He testified that Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, an authentic transmitter of hadiths, said that the verse of the sword "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term." ‘Awfi cited Ibn ‘Abbas, who argued that "Ultimatum" obviated earlier peace treaties.[60] The Shafi‘i school took this as a justification for killing anyone who abandoned prayer and for fighting anyone who refused to pay increased religious minority taxes.[61] Such interpretations resonate. Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti, a contemporary Al-Azhar University scholar, wrote that "the verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that holy war, which is demanded in Islamic law, is not a defensive war because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all holy wars. Its goal is the exaltation of the word of God, the construction of Islamic society, and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth regardless of the means. It is legal to carry on an offensive holy war."[62] Defensive warfare in Islam is nothing but a phase of the Islamic mission that the Prophet practiced. After that, it was followed by another phase, that is, calling all people to embrace Islam. Even for People of the Book, there can be no role except conversion to Islam or subjugation to Muslim rule. Hence, Muhammad's statement, "They would not invade you, but you invade them."[63] Modern Revisionism of Jihad David Powers, a well-known researcher of classical Islam, agreed that 9:5 abrogates no less than 124 verses that command or imply anything less than a total offensive against the non-believers. However, he says the verse is itself considered to be abrogated by the conditional clause with which it concludes: "But if they repent and perform the prayer and pay the alms, then let them go their way."[64] But such a condition is not magnanimous: When infidels repent and perform the Muslim prayer and pay alms, it means they have become Muslims. Once they are Muslims, there is no need to slay them. The clause thus becomes more coercive than conditional. It suggests than a non-Muslim must convert to Islam or be slain. Still, no verse is more frequently cited by contemporary Muslims preachers and analysts to depict Islam as peaceful and compassionate as 2:256, "Let there be no compulsion in religion." For Sheikh Abdur Rahman, the chief justice of Pakistan, this verse is one of the most important, containing a charter of freedom of conscience unparalleled in the religious annals of mankind.[65] Muhammad offered this verse in his first year of residence in Medina when he needed the Jews' support. Nahhas, with the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas, said: "Scholars differed concerning 2:256. Some said it has been abrogated by 9:73 for the Prophet compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fight those that had no alternative but to surrender to Islam. Other scholars said that 2:256 had not been abrogated concerning the People of the Book. It is only the infidels who are compelled to embrace Islam."[66] Suyuti does not see 2:256 abrogated by 9:73 but rather interprets 9:73 as a case of postponing the fight until Muslims become strong. He argues that when Muslims were weak, God commanded them to be patient.[67] This is also the case of sura 9:29, which deals with Jews and Christians. Fighting them is mentioned after the clarification regarding fighting the idolaters (9:5). This verse (9:29) was revealed when Muhammad was commanded to fight the Byzantines and prepared the expedition to Tabuk. Ibn Kathir declared: The order is to fight the People of the Book until they pay the jizyah (protection tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad because all prophets commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him even though he is the "mightiest of all messengers because it suits their desires and lusts, and because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all prophets." Ibn Kathir continues: "This honorable verse was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book. After the pagans were defeated, the people entered God's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control."[68] The issue of abrogation in Islam is critical to understanding both jihad and da'wa, the propagation of Islam. Some Muslims may preach tolerance and argue that jihad refers only to an internal, peaceful struggle to better oneself. Western commentators can convince themselves that such teachings are correct. However, for learned Muslim scholars and populist leaders, such notions are or should be risible. They recognize that, in practice, there is compulsion in Islam. They take seriously the notion that the Qur'an teaches not just tolerance among religions, but tolerance among religions on the terms of Islam. To understand the challenge of the current Islamist revival, it is crucial for non-Muslims and moderate Muslims alike to recognize that interpretation of Islamic doctrine can have two faces, and that the Medinan face may very well continue to overshadow the Meccan face for a major portion, if not the majority, of contemporary Muslims. http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam Abrogation- this is a concept which interests me. For example, I had previous asked people their opinion on Maricon, as a foolower of Paul, he stated, as many Xians do, that Jesus is a new covenant and that he ABROGATED the law of the Old Testament. He gave two new commandments. However, what I constantly see is Xians falling back on the law to spew hate on people, ie- gays, etc. It appears to me that humans are naturally hated and violent and will use any excuse or abrogation to fulfill this natual tendency? And your opinion on this is? However, what I constantly see is Xians falling back on the law to spew hate on people, ie- gays, etc. It appears to me that humans are naturally hated and violent and will use any excuse or abrogation to fulfill this natual tendency? And your opinion on this is? "Christians" spew no hatred on anyone. Just cause one points out a "fault" in another, does that mean they hate them? Or are lovingly trying to lend a guiding hand? It is just as "wrong" to be gay as it is to lie or steal or even treat others disrespectfully and not so much in a "loving" way. And even though in the Christian faith, homosexuality is a sin, does not mean homosexuals are any less of a person, or any more "evil" of a person. This is where "Judge not, less ye be judged" plays it's part. We may not agree with their choice, but all in all if it is a true follower of God, Jesus Christ, then they will not treat a homosexual any different then they would say, their preacher, or brothers/sisters in Christ, or anyone else for that matter. We are all God's, regardless if we are gay, black, white, straight, tall, short, ect. We were all bought with a price. Now not saying everyone and all will have the pleasure in the glory's of Heaven, that is solely up to the discretion of God. But nevertheless, we all have our own fair chance at having a piece of that gift. Think this "homosexual" thing has been blown way out of proportion. Especially with the increasing publicised side of homosexuality. Think part of it is and why people frown on this, is that in our culture and or country/laws in itself, we the people make those. So with laws against homosexuality or just cultural beliefs/feelings towards the preference, those can be disputed and worked out to better "suite" anyone and everyone. But that's not the case with God's laws. He is not running a democracy so to speak. And it offends those that this conflicts with their wants. And just for record, this is not a bash or anything specific to do with homosexuality. Just a general view of what I see. You Guys really need to progress into the 21th Century! Homosexuality is a preference. Yes they have more chromosomes or whatever to influence that preference. But nevertheless, it is a choice. Being attracted to the same gender and homosexuality don't entirely mean the same thing. Being attracted to a person is not a choice, it is natural. But homosexuality in itself is the act of having sex between two or more of the same gender. That is where the choice lays. Sorry but I have to disagree. Homosexuality IS INDEED HARDWIRED to us thanks to a compelling urge to reproduce that is so powerful that satiation comes from any form of release. EVERY SINGLE MAMMAL ON THIS PLANET HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE HOMOSEXUAL! Some of it is environment. Personally I cannot resort to Homosexuality for "release" now does it fit for my desired mating. I have to me with Females ONLY myself. Show me one single species of Mammal that does not have any homosexuality in it at all and I will commend you for doing something science has yet to do! Some humans are more in control of themselves than others. Please tell us none of you masturbate either! I want to call somebody a liar today! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abrogation and Jihad How does the theological debate over abrogation impact contemporary policy formulation? While not all terrorism is rooted in Islam, the religion is an enabler for many. It is wrong to assume that more extreme interpretations of religion are illegitimate. Statements that there is no compulsion in religion and that jihad is primarily about internal struggle and not about holy war may receive applause in university lecture halls and diplomatic board rooms, but they misunderstand the importance of abrogation in Islamic theology. It is important to acknowledge that what university scholars believe, and what most Muslims—or more extreme Muslims—believe are two different things. For many Islamists and radical Muslims, abrogation is real and what the West calls terror is, indeed, just. During the lifetime of Muhammad, the Islamic community passed through three stages. In the beginning from 610 until 622, God commanded restraint. As the Muslims relocated to Medina (623-26), God permitted Muslims only to fight in a defensive war. However, in the last six years of Muhammad's life (626-32), God permitted Muslims to fight an aggressive war first against polytheists,[52] and later against monotheists like the Jews of Khaybar.[53] Once Muhammad was given permission to kill in the name of God, he instigated battle. Chapter 9 of the Qur'an, in English called "Ultimatum," is the most important concerning the issues of abrogation and jihad against unbelievers. It is the only chapter that does not begin "in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful."[54] Commentators agree that Muhammad received this revelation in 631, the year before his death, when he had returned to Mecca and was at his strongest.[55] Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari (810-70), compiler of one of the most authoritative collections of the hadith, said that "Ultimatum" was the last chapter revealed to Muhammad[56] although others suggest it might have been penultimate. Regardless, coming at or near the very end of Muhammad's life, "Ultimatum" trumps earlier revelations. Because this chapter contains violent passages, it abrogates previous peaceful content. Muhsin Khan, the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari, says God revealed "Ultimatum" in order to discard restraint and to command Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam or until they pay religious taxes. So, at first aggressive fighting was forbidden; it later became permissible (2:190) and subsequently obligatory (9:5).[57] This "verse of the sword" abrogated, canceled, and replaced 124 verses that called for tolerance, compassion, and peace.[58] Suyuti said that everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish God's kingdom on earth. Prior to receiving "Ultimatum," Muhammad had reached agreements with various Arab tribes. But when God gave Muhammad a revelation (2:190-2), Muhammad felt justified in breaking his cease-fire. For Isma'il bin Kathir (1301-73), a student of Ibn Taymiyya and an influential Qur'an interpreter in his own right, it is clear: As jihad involves death and the killing of men, God draws attention to the fact that disbelief, polytheism, and avoidance of God's path as shown by the Qur'an are worse than killing them.[59] This creates license for future generations of Muslims to kill non-Muslims solely on the basis of their refusal to accept Islam. According to Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Chapter 9:5, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first caliph, used this and other verses to validate fighting anyone who either did not pay religious taxes to the Muslims or convert to Islam. Ibn ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, one of the hadith transmitters, quoted Muhammad as saying, "I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God." He testified that Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, an authentic transmitter of hadiths, said that the verse of the sword "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term." ‘Awfi cited Ibn ‘Abbas, who argued that "Ultimatum" obviated earlier peace treaties.[60] The Shafi‘i school took this as a justification for killing anyone who abandoned prayer and for fighting anyone who refused to pay increased religious minority taxes.[61] Such interpretations resonate. Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti, a contemporary Al-Azhar University scholar, wrote that "the verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that holy war, which is demanded in Islamic law, is not a defensive war because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all holy wars. Its goal is the exaltation of the word of God, the construction of Islamic society, and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth regardless of the means. It is legal to carry on an offensive holy war."[62] Defensive warfare in Islam is nothing but a phase of the Islamic mission that the Prophet practiced. After that, it was followed by another phase, that is, calling all people to embrace Islam. Even for People of the Book, there can be no role except conversion to Islam or subjugation to Muslim rule. Hence, Muhammad's statement, "They would not invade you, but you invade them."[63] Modern Revisionism of Jihad David Powers, a well-known researcher of classical Islam, agreed that 9:5 abrogates no less than 124 verses that command or imply anything less than a total offensive against the non-believers. However, he says the verse is itself considered to be abrogated by the conditional clause with which it concludes: "But if they repent and perform the prayer and pay the alms, then let them go their way."[64] But such a condition is not magnanimous: When infidels repent and perform the Muslim prayer and pay alms, it means they have become Muslims. Once they are Muslims, there is no need to slay them. The clause thus becomes more coercive than conditional. It suggests than a non-Muslim must convert to Islam or be slain. Still, no verse is more frequently cited by contemporary Muslims preachers and analysts to depict Islam as peaceful and compassionate as 2:256, "Let there be no compulsion in religion." For Sheikh Abdur Rahman, the chief justice of Pakistan, this verse is one of the most important, containing a charter of freedom of conscience unparalleled in the religious annals of mankind.[65] Muhammad offered this verse in his first year of residence in Medina when he needed the Jews' support. Nahhas, with the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas, said: "Scholars differed concerning 2:256. Some said it has been abrogated by 9:73 for the Prophet compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fight those that had no alternative but to surrender to Islam. Other scholars said that 2:256 had not been abrogated concerning the People of the Book. It is only the infidels who are compelled to embrace Islam."[66] Suyuti does not see 2:256 abrogated by 9:73 but rather interprets 9:73 as a case of postponing the fight until Muslims become strong. He argues that when Muslims were weak, God commanded them to be patient.[67] This is also the case of sura 9:29, which deals with Jews and Christians. Fighting them is mentioned after the clarification regarding fighting the idolaters (9:5). This verse (9:29) was revealed when Muhammad was commanded to fight the Byzantines and prepared the expedition to Tabuk. Ibn Kathir declared: The order is to fight the People of the Book until they pay the jizyah (protection tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad because all prophets commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him even though he is the "mightiest of all messengers because it suits their desires and lusts, and because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all prophets." Ibn Kathir continues: "This honorable verse was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book. After the pagans were defeated, the people entered God's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control."[68] The issue of abrogation in Islam is critical to understanding both jihad and da'wa, the propagation of Islam. Some Muslims may preach tolerance and argue that jihad refers only to an internal, peaceful struggle to better oneself. Western commentators can convince themselves that such teachings are correct. However, for learned Muslim scholars and populist leaders, such notions are or should be risible. They recognize that, in practice, there is compulsion in Islam. They take seriously the notion that the Qur'an teaches not just tolerance among religions, but tolerance among religions on the terms of Islam. To understand the challenge of the current Islamist revival, it is crucial for non-Muslims and moderate Muslims alike to recognize that interpretation of Islamic doctrine can have two faces, and that the Medinan face may very well continue to overshadow the Meccan face for a major portion, if not the majority, of contemporary Muslims. http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam Abrogation- this is a concept which interests me. For example, I had previous asked people their opinion on Maricon, as a foolower of Paul, he stated, as many Xians do, that Jesus is a new covenant and that he ABROGATED the law of the Old Testament. He gave two new commandments. However, what I constantly see is Xians falling back on the law to spew hate on people, ie- gays, etc. It appears to me that humans are naturally hated and violent and will use any excuse or abrogation to fulfill this natual tendency? And your opinion on this is? However, what I constantly see is Xians falling back on the law to spew hate on people, ie- gays, etc. It appears to me that humans are naturally hated and violent and will use any excuse or abrogation to fulfill this natual tendency? And your opinion on this is? "Christians" spew no hatred on anyone. Just cause one points out a "fault" in another, does that mean they hate them? Or are lovingly trying to lend a guiding hand? It is just as "wrong" to be gay as it is to lie or steal or even treat others disrespectfully and not so much in a "loving" way. And even though in the Christian faith, homosexuality is a sin, does not mean homosexuals are any less of a person, or any more "evil" of a person. This is where "Judge not, less ye be judged" plays it's part. We may not agree with their choice, but all in all if it is a true follower of God, Jesus Christ, then they will not treat a homosexual any different then they would say, their preacher, or brothers/sisters in Christ, or anyone else for that matter. We are all God's, regardless if we are gay, black, white, straight, tall, short, ect. We were all bought with a price. Now not saying everyone and all will have the pleasure in the glory's of Heaven, that is solely up to the discretion of God. But nevertheless, we all have our own fair chance at having a piece of that gift. Think this "homosexual" thing has been blown way out of proportion. Especially with the increasing publicised side of homosexuality. Think part of it is and why people frown on this, is that in our culture and or country/laws in itself, we the people make those. So with laws against homosexuality or just cultural beliefs/feelings towards the preference, those can be disputed and worked out to better "suite" anyone and everyone. But that's not the case with God's laws. He is not running a democracy so to speak. And it offends those that this conflicts with their wants. And just for record, this is not a bash or anything specific to do with homosexuality. Just a general view of what I see. You Guys really need to progress into the 21th Century! Homosexuality is a preference. Yes they have more chromosomes or whatever to influence that preference. But nevertheless, it is a choice. Being attracted to the same gender and homosexuality don't entirely mean the same thing. Being attracted to a person is not a choice, it is natural. But homosexuality in itself is the act of having sex between two or more of the same gender. That is where the choice lays. 
|
|
|
|
|
