MadYaker wrote: » So the Brits and the Americans are bombing Iraq and Syria. Again. They say it's to destroy ISIS but pretty much everyone accepts that airstrikes aren't going to do it. It's been proven time and time again that invasions by western christian nations into muslim nations "to destroy terrorism" doesn't do anything of the sort. These military campaigns just lead to more radicalisation of muslims. Since "the war on terror" started after 9/11 there has been a marked increase in radicalised muslim terrorist groups. It has spread from Pakistan and Afghanistan to all over the Middle East and Africa. Id imagine it becomes a lot easier for groups like ISIS to recruit young men to their cause once the American and British bombs start dropping, civilian casualties are an absolute certainty. There is no way ISIS could have spread the way they have without support of the local populations. Obama and Cameron are not stupid men, and neither were there predecessors. So if they know that their "solution" simply makes the problem worse then why do they do it? I don't believe anymore that their true goal is to defeat terrorism, how could it be? So what is it then? ISIS formed from groups that were armed and supported by the Americans when they fought against Al Assad's regime in Syria. Now all of a sudden these people are the enemy and the Americans are arming the Kurds, a large ethnic group spread over many nations in the middle east, including Turkey, a sort of ally of the US, where they have been making noise about independence for the Kurdish people for the last few years. In 10 years time will we see a similar situation where the Kurds start to cause trouble trying to set up their own state using all the money and arms they got from the US and it all starts again? The leaders like Cameron and Obama talk about learning from the mistakes of the past but there is no evidence of that at all.
Sad thing two media personalitys ripped in to her
Manic Moran wrote: » Who? I missed that.
PopePalpatine wrote: » Two Fox News anchors, who called her "boobs on the ground".
nokia69 wrote: » an interview with an ISIS member I saw six jihadists demanding that a Christian women and her daughter become their wives. The daughter was about 12-13-years-old. I told the jihadists forcing women is forbidden in Islam and children can't be touched under any circumstances. They loaded their guns in my face and told me to leave. I immediately left to the local court that was based in a small house, but the judge was worse, he said I was wrong because 13-year-old girl is not considered a child, essentially because prophet Muhammad married his wife, Aisha, when she was only 9 years old. He accused me of having poor faith in the practices of prophet Muhammad for which I could have been detained and possibly punished with tough sentences, but my field commander soon arrived and saved me.
nokia69 wrote: » ISIS have the support of millions of muslims in the middle east and plenty of muslims in the west I have yet to meet or hear of any Christians that support the lords resistance army
The Dutch Defence Ministry has started to advise military personnel that they should not wear their uniforms on public transport for fear that they will be targeted by jihadists after the Netherlands joined the campaign to fight Isis The terror threat in the Netherlands stands at "substantial" which is the second highest level used by the Dutch anti-terror coordinator.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » This doesn't qualify as evidence those are the spoken words of some one whom he him self doesn't back it up with evidence the judge is clearly Ignorant of the Islamic ruling on marriage and quoting such Incident to justify his ruling shows his poor judgement & lack of Islamic knowledge I also dare you to find a single verse in the Quran or A single Hadeeth of the Prophet justifying rape or committing rape, you my friend have learned about Islam from a very corrupted source you know NOTHING about the prophet of Islam the way he lived his life & how he dealt with his daily matters, his relationship with his wives & companion and the mercy he had toward animals non-Muslim and Muslims alike go read a book of Seerah that charts his Biography so you can expand that narrow mind of yours - I suggest al raheeq al makhtum- we are not in primary school any more in the real world you need to cite every piece of information you quote or say for people to even consider your work. I suggest you don't Judge Islam based on Muslims as many are not practising instead read about it from its original sources go to your local mosque and ask this is the only way for you to understand whether an action committed by a Muslim or a group of Muslim is supported by Islam. Were is the statistic/date/survey conduct for you to interfere such a massive statement from? Nearly every major and well know and followed scholar denounced them Including Al-Qaradawi whom if you know anything is probably the biggest Muslim scholar in the east who strongly advocate the establishment of an Islamic state but not in the way Isis is doing it enough to know that Saudi Arabia the strong hold of Islam in today's modern world is fighting & denouncing Isis
Defender OF Faith wrote: » I suggest you don't Judge Islam based on Muslims as many are not practising instead read about it from its original sources go to your local mosque and ask this is the only way for you to understand whether an action committed by a Muslim or a group of Muslim is supported by Islam.
BuilderPlumber wrote: » Because their Islam is the wrong Islam.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » Were is the statistic/date/survey conduct for you to interfere such a massive statement from? Nearly every major and well know and followed scholar denounced them Including Al-Qaradawi whom if you know anything is probably the biggest Muslim scholar in the east who strongly advocate the establishment of an Islamic state but not in the way Isis is doing it enough to know that Saudi Arabia the strong hold of Islam in today's modern world is fighting & denouncing Isis
nokia69 wrote: » thousands of muslims from europe are fighting for ISIS, thats a fact90% of saudis support ISIS and they have given millions to support them, if there was a free and fair election in saudi arabia tomorrow an ISIS type regime would be elected nobody who knows the country doubts this there will always be a certain % of muslims supporting groups like ISIS thats just the nature of the religion of peace
Nodin wrote: » You've a source for that?
According to the Saudi-owned Al-Hayat newspaper, in July 2014 "an opinion poll of Saudis [was] released on social networking sites, claiming that 92 percent of the target group believes that 'IS conforms to the values of Islam and Islamic law.'" The leading Saudi commentator, Jamal Khashoggi, recently warned of ISIS' Saudi supporters who "watch from the shadows."
Defender OF Faith wrote: » ...Including Al-Qaradawi whom if you know anything is probably the biggest Muslim scholar in the east who strongly advocate the establishment of an Islamic state but not in the way Isis is doing it enough to know that Saudi Arabia the strong hold of Islam in today's modern world is fighting & denouncing Isis
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » I'm sure they'd argue theirs is correct, and you are an apostate. Who to believe...? In fcukin fairness, bombing a school...http://m.rte.ie/news/2014/1001/649319-syria/
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » is the same chap? "O Allah, take your enemies, the enemies of Islam. O Allah, take the Jews, the treacherous aggressors. O Allah, take this profligate, cunning, arrogant band of people. O Allah, they have spread much tyranny and corruption in the land. Pour Your wrath upon them, O our God. Lie in wait for them. O Allah, You annihilated the people of Thamoud (Sodom) at the hand of a tyrant, and You annihilated the people of 'Aad with a fierce, icy gale, and You destroyed the Pharaoh and his soldiers – O Allah, take this oppressive, tyrannical band of people. O Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish Zionist band of people. O Allah, do not spare a single one of them. O Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one" & "Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the Jews people who would punish them for their corruption ... The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them.... Allah Willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers" & "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle is that they should be murdered or crucified." hardly a beacon of reason?
wretcheddomain wrote: » The weakness of monotheism would always come down to how to interpret so-called holy texts - as everybody can claim to have the correct interpretation and nobody is there (nor could be there) to arbitrate the "correct way". Given the internal inconsistencies and contradictions in the text, no amount of "scholarly interpretation" can ever hope to fix them and, as a result, ISIS have no worse a claim to the correct version than any Western liberal Muslim. Unfortunately, it appears Allah thought the best way to unify the Muslims and non-Muslims throughout the ages was to rely on a text so open to misinterpretation and mistranslation.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » Islam provide Muslim with the intellectual freedom and hence why you don't see the Quran containing scientific inconsistences such as the bible which the Christian church have established as fact at one point and denied to accept any evidence the contradict them.
nokia69 wrote: » http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Quran how does god get it so wrong and there is NO intellectual freedom in islam, you can be killed for holding certain views
nokia69 wrote: » [Cant post link due to <50 posts] how does god get it so wrong and there is NO intellectual freedom in islam, you can be killed for holding certain views
Defender OF Faith wrote: » Not in Islam there are ground rules and conditions as to whether ones interpretation is correct or no, a group of Muslim scholars have occupied themselves with establishing the criteria and methodology of how to differentiate proper interpretations from improper ones. The unprecedented science of Usul al-fiqh provide the basic tools necessary to approach shari`ah texts and the requirements for those eligible for practicing this interpretation.
wretcheddomain wrote: » So you're conceding that Allah wrote the Q'uran in such a way that it had to be interpreted by "a group of Muslim scholars"? He doesn't appear to have been a very capable author. Imagine the reception J.K. Rowling would receive if she penned another Harry Potter sequel, only to inform everyone that only she knew the real meaning, and everyone else had to "become scholars" to determine the true meaning for everyone else. Nobody would purchase her book, but then again, Rowling has never claimed to offer everyone eternal salvation.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » I will let this Verse answer your question: "It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise {Muhkamat} - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific {Mutashabihat }. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah. But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding." (3/7) "Allah states that in the Qur'an, there are Ayat that are Muhkamat, entirely clear and plain, and these are the foundations of the Book which are plain for everyone. And there are Ayat in the Qur'an that are Mutashabihat not entirely clear for many, or some people. So those who refer to the Muhkam Ayat to understand the Mutashabih Ayat, will have acquired the correct guidance, and vice versa. They are the foundations of the Book), meaning, they are the basis of the Qur'an, and should be referred to for clarification, when warranted. (And others not entirely clear) as they have several meanings, some that agree with the Muhkam and some that carry other literal indications, although these meaning might not be desired. The Muhkamat are the Ayat that explain the abrogating rulings, the allowed, prohibited, laws, limits, obligations and rulings that should be believed in and implemented. As for the Mutashabihat Ayat, they include the abrogated Ayat, parables, oaths, and what should be believed in, but not implemented. (So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation) meaning, those who are misguided and deviate from truth to falsehood (they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof) meaning, they refer to the Mutashabih, because they are able to alter its meanings to conform with their false interpretation since the wordings of the Mutashabihat encompass such a wide area of meanings. As for the Muhkam Ayat, they cannot be altered because they are clear and, thus, constitute unequivocal proof against the misguided people. This is why Allah said, (seeking Al-Fitnah) meaning, they seek to misguide their following by pretending to prove their innovation by relying on the Qur'an -- the Mutashabih of it -- Its narrated by Ibn `Abbas, "Tafsir/Interpretation is of four types: Interpretation that the Arabs know in their language; Interpretation that no one is excused of being ignorant of; Interpretation that the scholars know; and Interpretation that only Allah knows.'' From Tafsir Ibn Kathir chapter 3 verse 7
Defender OF Faith wrote: » I will let this Verse answer your question:
nokia69 wrote: » [<50 posts
Defender OF Faith wrote: » I also dare you to find a single verse in the Quran or A single Hadeeth of the Prophet justifying rape or committing rape, to even consider your work.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Problem with this is, if you rock on up to a mosque, and ask, would it not be a Muslim that would be replying? Whats to say you wouldn't meet someone who has gone off the reservation? how would you know who's interpretation of Islam is the correct one. Every cult and sect interprets their scripture as they see fit, and view rivals as apostates. Whats your take on Koran 4.24? "Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess" It seems it is permissible to rape slaves? Or to put it another way, as you might find the term "slave" offensive, sexual relationships are permissible with a woman as long as you "own her"? and (Al-Umm, 5/43) : The wife has no right to object to her husband owning female slaves or to his having intercourse with them...http://islamqa.info/en/10382 just out of curiosity?
Defender OF Faith wrote: » Another is the statement attributed to the Prophet, according to which he ordered all polytheists, ... to leave the Arabian peninsula, however you need to fully understand these situations to understand no aggression was ever intended.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Seriously?
Defender OF Faith wrote: » Again you didnt even bother looking up the situations and what actually happened in each here is a small synops: The case of the Bani Nazir actually arose when they broke their treaty with the Prophet, something that was even in pre-Islamic times considered to be a major crime. Furthermore, the Bani Nazir tried several times to kill the Prophet. Even after he forgave them they did not relent. Naturally, then, there was no other way left but to expel them from Medina. The story about the killing of the Jews of Bani Quraiza on the decision of Sa ‘ad Ibn Muadh is extremely doubtful, although it is mentioned in some detail in the books of Hadith. On the basis of detailed research, the Indian scholar Barkat Ahmad, in his Urdu book Rasul Akram Aur Yahud-e Hijaz (‘The Noble Prophet and the Jews of the Hijaz’) argues that this story is false. He provides numerous eyewitness accounts to back his claim. On the issue of purging the Arabian peninsula of all non-Muslims, including pagans and the ‘People of the Book’, it is crucial to note that by this the Prophet did not mean to refer to ordinary non-Muslims. That is why some leading fuqaha or scholars of Muslim jurisprudence maintain that the order for qital given to the Prophet was specific only to the Quraish pagans of Mecca. Thus, the noted Egyptian Islamic scholar Shaikh Muhammad Abu Zahra writes in this regard in his book Nazariyat al-Harb fi al-Islam (‘The Concept of War in Islam’), ‘Qital was restricted only to the Quraish, because it was they who were aggressors, and even after the migration of the Prophet to Medina they continued to target the helpless Muslims who remained in Mecca.’ It must be noted here that the commandment to clear the Arabian peninsula of polytheists was related to that particular historical context. Some Scholars argue that the reference to the Arabian peninsula in these hadith reports is only to Medina, or else simply to Medina and Mecca, and not the entire Arabian peninsula, because clearing the whole of this region of non-Muslims was impossible and, in fact, did not happen.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c11f742d28c411a385fee4c52bb48d6b.svg)
