There have been a few cases of prominent Muslim leaders condemning the killing of innocent people for the benefit of western media, only to turn around and tell fellow Muslims that non-Mulims are never innocent.

On this board, from Annie, in reference to 9/11 etc:


Annie Anthrax wrote on Oct 7^th, 2010 at 12:30pm:

A Muslim has to be respectful. Killing innocents and suicide bombings are both forbidden –if Muslims followed this we wouldn’t have had 9/11 or Bali and Israel wouldn’t have an excuse to bomb the sh!t out of the Palestinian children.

Followed by Abu with:


abu_rashid wrote on Oct 7^th, 2010 at 6:54pm:

Well this is a slightly different issue. As far as the American state deserving some of it's own medicine, nothing is more deserving than a taste of one's own medicine. As for the individual civilians being the target of it, not really. But as voters in a democracy, they are in a sense responsible for the foreign policy of their governments which has led to the death and suffering of millions worldwide.

I realise that Annie may not be that familiar with Islamic law (in the same post she also said that rape is forbidden in Islam). However, Abu's posts made me wonder what Islam's approach to the concept of innocence is. Is it the same as in the modern world, or does it have subtly different meanings in Islam like so many other words?

It does sound like a very convenient way of waging war on modern democracy, by using it to avoid troublesome concepts like innocence.

Were the 9/11 victims 'in a sense' not innocent?

Are there any examples of collective punishment in the Koran that may shed light on this mentality?

Rape is forbidden in Islam. Do some research.


Quote:

There have been a few cases of prominent Muslim leaders condemning the killing of innocent people for the benefit of western media, only to turn around and tell fellow Muslims that non-Mulims are never innocent.

Where?

I have done my research.

I forget whether it was Abu or Malik who explained it, but there are several cases where rape is permitted (or if you want to speak Islamic, they are defined out of existence, or made unprosecutable).

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values

You haven't linked to any 'evidence' about rape being permitted in Islam in your Wiki.

Taking the word of one Muslim (whether it was Abu or Malik) is hardly doing your own research, is it?

Did you know that the Hebrew Bible orders death by stoning for a victim of rape if it was within city limits? She's let off if it was in a field though. Why aren't you up in arms about that?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 6^th, 2010 at 11:02am:

You haven't linked to any 'evidence' about rape being permitted in Islam in your Wiki. Taking the word of one Muslim (whether it was Abu or Malik) is hardly doing your own research, is it? Did you know that the Hebrew Bible orders death by stoning for a victim of rape if it was within city limits? She's let off if it was in a field though. Why aren't you up in arms about that?

Why is it that noone advocates this rule then? Why are there muslims who support death by stoning? Why is there this difference between Judaism and Islam?

fd,


Quote:

I have done my research. I forget whether it was Abu or Malik who explained it, but there are several cases where rape is permitted (or if you want to speak Islamic, they are defined out of existence, or made unprosecutable).

You're one of the most poorly researched detractors of Islam I've ever come across. Even Soren puts you to shame and that's saying something.

I've stated quite clearly for you numerous times that Islam forbids rape and punishes for it more severely than any Western country, yet you still come back with this garbage.

Liifræd,


Quote:

Why is it that noone advocates this rule then?

There are plenty of Jews calling for the re-institution of Halacha (Judaic Biblical law, including stoning), but unlike with Muslims, the media isn't interested in sensationalising them.

And obviously the "well researched" detractors of Islam that we see here are completely ignorant of such things.

I tried looking but couldn't find anything on Jewish supporters of death by stoning. I did find this on wikipedia though:


Quote:

The official teachings of Judaism approve the death penalty in principle but the standard of proof required for application of death penalty is extremely stringent, and in practice, it has been abolished by various Talmudic decisions, making the situations in which a death sentence could be passed effectively impossible and hypothetical. "Forty years before the destruction" of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE, i.e. in 30 CE, the Sanhedrin effectively abolished capital punishment, making it a hypothetical upper limit on the severity of punishment, fitting in finality for God alone to use, not fallible humans.

What is Islam's approach to the concept of innocence? Is it the same as in the modern world, or does it have subtly different meanings in Islam like so many other words?

Were the 9/11 victims 'in a sense' not innocent?

Are there any examples of collective punishment in the Koran that may shed light on this mentality?

Quote:

Are there any examples of collective punishment in the Koran that may shed light on this mentality?

Have you considered reading it to find out?

I'm told I wouldn't understand it unless I read it in Arabic. And even then I would have no right to comment on it without approval from some kind of cleric, which is hard seeing as clerics don't exist.

How would I know which bits abrogate other bits? How would I know when Mohammed was miselading people about Islam to trick them into joining, and when he was revealing the true nature of Islam?

I think it's simpler to just ask a Muslim. I don't go to medical school when I feel sick.

Perhaps if you ceased the absurd argumentation within yourself and just read it, then you could draw your own conclusions?

Nobody can forbid you from making your own claims about it after you read it, we just wouldn't listen to them, obviously...

It is your interpretation that is of interest to me Abu, not my own.

Quote:

I tried looking but couldn't find anything on Jewish supporters of death by stoning. I did find this on wikipedia though:

The info is out there, you're just not that interested in looking at it, and the media isn't that interested in showing it to you. Here's a few links regarding Jewish attitudes towards Halacha, especially the more violent aspects:

Religious Affairs: Who's afraid of a halachic state?
Halacha & Shari'ah
Zionist settler arrested for implementing Halacha with his own hands
Another vigilante style Halacha implementation
Killing non-Jews, even kids, is acceptable for a Jew, according to Halacha
The King's Torah
Rabbi Lior: Killing civilians is ok according to Halacha

Also since Jews are usually not as open as Muslims about their beliefs, it's going to be harder for you to come across details of the moves to re-implement Halacha. Much of the "rules of engagement" that the Zionist state adopts are written up by panels of Rabbis and are based on Halacha.


Quote:

The official teachings of Judaism approve the death penalty in principle but the standard of proof required for application of death penalty is extremely stringent, and in practice

And the Islamic proofs required are even more stringent than the Jewish ones.

Quote:

How would I know which bits abrogate other bits?

Use your critical thinking skills.

Quote:

Use your critical thinking skills.

And in the absence of those?  ;D

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 6^th, 2010 at 2:33pm:

Quote: I tried looking but couldn't find anything on Jewish supporters of death by stoning. I did find this on wikipedia though: The info is out there, you're just not that interested in looking at it, and the media isn't that interested in showing it to you. Here's a few links regarding Jewish attitudes towards Halacha, especially the more violent aspects: Religious Affairs: Who's afraid of a halachic state? Halacha & Shari'ah Zionist settler arrested for implementing Halacha with his own hands Another vigilante style Halacha implementation Killing non-Jews, even kids, is acceptable for a Jew, according to Halacha The King's Torah Rabbi Lior: Killing civilians is ok according to Halacha Also since Jews are usually not as open as Muslims about their beliefs, it's going to be harder for you to come across details of the moves to re-implement Halacha. Much of the "rules of engagement" that the Zionist state adopts are written up by panels of Rabbis and are based on Halacha.

Link one: "A lot of secular Israelis are afraid that if tomorrow Israel becomes a state ruled by Halacha, people will be stoned or burned to death for transgressing sacred laws, or at the very least will be prevented from driving a car, going to a coffee shop, having a barbecue in their backyard or doing anything else that is forbidden on Shabbat. People who think that the courts that rule according to Jewish law will mete out capital punishment do not know anything about Jewish law. Capital punishment is forbidden today.

Link two does not mention stoning but does mention: "Countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan under the Taliban, whose legal systems are based on Sharia openly torture and mutilate citizens, persecute homosexuals, sentence apostates to death and restrict all freedom of religion. The extent of Sharia’s influence in supposed moderate countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Bangladesh, and Pakistan is instructive."

Link three and link four: again no stoning, and they don't even mention Halacha in the articles...

Links five and six: even though he is a Jewish person, he quoted justifications from the Bible. There's also no mention of stoning at all.

Quote:

"Countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan under the Taliban, whose legal systems are based on Sharia openly torture and mutilate citizens, persecute homosexuals, sentence apostates to death and restrict all freedom of religion. "

Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy - an oxymoron. Their basic system of governance is forbidden in Islam. Why would you use them as an example?

The Taliban were hardly model Muslims either.

Quote:

Link one: "A lot of secular Israelis...

The links all show inclinations of Jews towards returning to the Halachic system whereby Rabbis establish the laws based on the Torah and Talmud.


Quote:

Link two does not mention stoning but does mention: "Countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan under the Taliban, whose legal systems are based on Sharia openly torture and mutilate citizens

Islam strictly prohibits torture. Israel is the only country in the world where up until recently torture was legal. In fact Israel has one of the highest rates of citizen support for torture at 43%, when this is broken down by religion, the majority of Jewish Israelis support torture, whilst the majority of Muslim/Christian Israelis oppose it. I think you'd find most Muslim countries have some of the lowest rates too. Usually Muslim activists are the victims of the torture in the Muslim countries you mentioned, which is then ironically misused by people like yourself to try and claim Islam promotes torture. What a joke.
(Source: BBC)

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 6^th, 2010 at 3:20pm:

Quote: "Countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan under the Taliban, whose legal systems are based on Sharia openly torture and mutilate citizens, persecute homosexuals, sentence apostates to death and restrict all freedom of religion. " Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy - an oxymoron. Their basic system of governance is forbidden in Islam. Why would you use them as an example? The Taliban were hardly model Muslims either.

Annie, it really sounds to me like Islam sure seems to make a lot of things that modern liberals find abhorrent "forbidden". I'm not accusing anybody here of being a liar but nothing you say about Islam seems to add up in my head.

I think what people here can't seem to comprehend is that just because a Muslim does something, doesn't make it Islamic.

It's pretty basic.

Quote:

Annie, it really sounds to me like Islam sure seems to make a lot of things that modern liberals find abhorrent "forbidden". I'm not accusing anybody here of being a liar but nothing you say about Islam seems to add up in my head.

Tell me what's not making sense and I'll explain it to you.

Slowly.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 6^th, 2010 at 3:20pm:

Quote: "Countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan under the Taliban, whose legal systems are based on Sharia openly torture and mutilate citizens, persecute homosexuals, sentence apostates to death and restrict all freedom of religion. " Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy - an oxymoron. Their basic system of governance is forbidden in Islam. Why would you use them as an example? The Taliban were hardly model Muslims either.

You are right. Perhaps we should ask a Muslim what Sharia law actually says, rather than looking for examples of it in practice. I am sure they would be 'open and frank' about it, right?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 6^th, 2010 at 3:24pm:

Quote: Annie, it really sounds to me like Islam sure seems to make a lot of things that modern liberals find abhorrent "forbidden". I'm not accusing anybody here of being a liar but nothing you say about Islam seems to add up in my head. Tell me what's not making sense and I'll explain it to you. Slowly.

Here you go:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1288959318/7#7

Last time I tried asking you told me to figure it out for myself. I am sure if I actually did that I would get equally criticised for not understanding it properly.

I didn't tell you to figure it out for yourself. I asked if you'd thought of actually reading the Quran to find the answers you're looking for. I know if I wanted to learn about Christianity I'd read the Bible.

You're curious about Islamic law - go straight to the source and make up your own mind then discuss.  At least you will then be able to do so with some authority.

My husband and I can read the same verse in the Quran and come up with completely different interpretations because we're coming from different perspectives. There are scholars that support his view and scholars that support mine.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 6^th, 2010 at 4:06pm:

I didn't tell you to figure it out for yourself. I asked if you'd thought of actually reading the Quran to find the answers you're looking for. I know if I wanted to learn about Christianity I'd read the Bible. You're curious about Islamic law - go straight to the source and make up your own mind then discuss.  At least you will then be able to do so with some authority. My husband and I can read the same verse in the Quran and come up with completely different interpretations because we're coming from different perspectives. There are scholars that support his view and scholars that support mine.

Annie, doesn't it worry you, that the holy book that Sharia Law ( and a lot of other stuff ) is based on , is 'open' to interpretation???

Surely laws should be based on as narrow an interpretation as possible...just to avoid confusion??

After all what would happen on the roads (for example) if speed limits, BCA and Right of Way laws were based upon each driver's 'opinion'????

All forms of Islam and interpretations are equally valid? Cool. I guess that means that those Saudi dudes killing those gays are just being good Muslims after all.

Quote:

Annie, doesn't it worry you, that the holy book that Sharia Law ( and a lot of other stuff ) is based on , is 'open' to interpretation???

Any book, including the Bible, is 'open' to interpretation, that point in itself doesn't mean a lot.

The analogy you give about driving rules is a little daft.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 6^th, 2010 at 5:14pm:

Quote: Annie, doesn't it worry you, that the holy book that Sharia Law ( and a lot of other stuff ) is based on , is 'open' to interpretation??? Any book, including the Bible, is 'open' to interpretation, that point in itself doesn't mean a lot. The analogy you give about driving rules is a little daft.

Only to you Abu...

And we don't use the Bible to make laws anymore do we???

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 6^th, 2010 at 3:20pm:

Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy - an oxymoron. Their basic system of governance is forbidden in Islam. Why would you use them as an example? The Taliban were hardly model Muslims either.

Merely quoting from links provided.


abu_rashid wrote on Nov 6^th, 2010 at 3:21pm:

The links all show inclinations of Jews towards returning to the Halachic system whereby Rabbis establish the laws based on the Torah and Talmud.

Abu, you made the claim that there are Jews who want to see the return of death by stoning as a penalty. I couldn't find anything so you provided me with links to read. None of which follow that claim.


Quote:

Islam strictly prohibits torture. Israel is the only country in the world where up until recently torture was legal. In fact Israel has one of the highest rates of citizen support for torture at 43%, when this is broken down by religion, the majority of Jewish Israelis support torture, whilst the majority of Muslim/Christian Israelis oppose it. I think you'd find most Muslim countries have some of the lowest rates too. Usually Muslim activists are the victims of the torture in the Muslim countries you mentioned, which is then ironically misused by people like yourself to try and claim Islam promotes torture. What a joke. (Source: BBC)

How am I supposed to know that Muslim activists are the victims of the torture mentioned? It didn't say this in the articles, and you're claiming that I'm misusing information.

As for Islam and torture:
Qur'an (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter"

Now, considering I am not a Muslim nor an Islamic scholar, perhaps I have been misinformed about the meaning of this particular passage. Care to explain this?

Hlysnan wrote on Nov 6^th, 2010 at 5:44pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 6th, 2010 at 3:20pm: Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy - an oxymoron. Their basic system of governance is forbidden in Islam. Why would you use them as an example? The Taliban were hardly model Muslims either. Merely quoting from links provided. abu_rashid wrote on Nov 6th, 2010 at 3:21pm: The links all show inclinations of Jews towards returning to the Halachic system whereby Rabbis establish the laws based on the Torah and Talmud. Abu, you made the claim that there are Jews who want to see the return of death by stoning as a penalty. I couldn't find anything so you provided me with links to read. None of which follow that claim. Quote: Islam strictly prohibits torture. Israel is the only country in the world where up until recently torture was legal. In fact Israel has one of the highest rates of citizen support for torture at 43%, when this is broken down by religion, the majority of Jewish Israelis support torture, whilst the majority of Muslim/Christian Israelis oppose it. I think you'd find most Muslim countries have some of the lowest rates too. Usually Muslim activists are the victims of the torture in the Muslim countries you mentioned, which is then ironically misused by people like yourself to try and claim Islam promotes torture. What a joke. (Source: BBC) How am I supposed to know that Muslim activists are the victims of the torture mentioned? It didn't say this in the articles, and you're claiming that I'm misusing information. As for Islam and torture: Qur'an (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter" Now, considering I am not a Muslim nor an Islamic scholar, perhaps I have been misinformed about the meaning of this particular passage. Care to explain this?

It might be 'open to interpretation'...... ;D ;D

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 6^th, 2010 at 4:06pm:

I didn't tell you to figure it out for yourself. I asked if you'd thought of actually reading the Quran to find the answers you're looking for. I know if I wanted to learn about Christianity I'd read the Bible. You're curious about Islamic law - go straight to the source and make up your own mind then discuss.  At least you will then be able to do so with some authority. My husband and I can read the same verse in the Quran and come up with completely different interpretations because we're coming from different perspectives. There are scholars that support his view and scholars that support mine.

All well and good, except that Islam has been turned into real Sharia law that is not open to dispute, if you want to avoid a stoning.

Some passages from the Koran were posted recently that proved to me that Muhammed supported full on wife beating - nasty green bruises and all - ao long as the woman 'deserved' it of course. You may disagree. That's when I go to a Muslim and ask them.

I have no itnerest in telling Muslims what the 'real' Islam is. My interest is in what Muslims believe. As far as I can tell, that does not include you.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 6^th, 2010 at 5:14pm:

Any book, including the Bible, is 'open' to interpretation, that point in itself doesn't mean a lot. The analogy you give about driving rules is a little daft.

As a New Age Muslim I must point out that you are wrong. The words in the holy qur'an are the "immutable words from allah" and as such they are not subject to muslim exegetics.

Immutable:Not subject or susceptible to change.

Also, there is no verse in the holy qur'an which allows the faithful to morph into what is colloquially termed 'moderate muslim'. Those frothing-at-the-mouth Imams on youtube who call for stonings, hand chopping, wife beating etc are true muslims who are merely obeying the muslims' psittacism. There is not one paragraph in the holy qur'an that says something like..."in the year 2010 muslims are released from the manly duty of beating their wife or wives." Nor does it say that once a muslim moves to a Western country lapidations are to cease.

Given the priapic nature of Islam who will speak up for distaff Islam?

The answer is Malsi. Malsi grants the right to distaff New Age Muslims to beat the crap out of their husbands. In my case it's a bit brutal because my wife has four husbands (Malsi allows that) and she has become an expert at dispensing punishment to those of her husbands who are reluctant to share her bed. :'( :-[ :(

Quote:

Given the priapic nature of Islam who will speak up for distaff Islam?

Nice one Karnal  ;D

Quote:

All forms of Islam and interpretations are equally valid? Cool. I guess that means that those Saudi dudes killing those gays are just being good Muslims after all.

Imperium - that's what you came up with after all that thinking? I'm disappointed.


Quote:

Annie, doesn't it worry you, that the holy book that Sharia Law ( and a lot of other stuff ) is based on , is 'open' to interpretation???

Gizmo - Abu answered you well, but I'll add that no, it doesn't worry me at all. Almost everything in our lives is a mirror. We bring our own context to what we read and learn.




Quote:

Some passages from the Koran were posted recently that proved to me that Muhammed supported full on wife beating - nasty green bruises and all - ao long as the woman 'deserved' it of course.

Really? I must have missed that. Can you please provide a link to a Quran passage that mentions bruising and Muhammad's support for "full on wife beating?"



Quote:

I have no itnerest in telling Muslims what the 'real' Islam is. My interest is in what Muslims believe. As far as I can tell, that does not include you.

I was a Muslim for over a decade and I've lived with one for almost two. If you want to write that off that's fine, but at least be honest about your reasons for doing so. My version of Islam doesn't fit with the view you're determined to hold on to. I doubt Abu's does either, which is why you have to twist what he says.

It's understandable that you find it confronting.

Quote:

I doubt Abu's does either, which is why you have to twist what he says.

Quite the opposite actually. My view of Islam is based predominantly on what Abu and Malik have posted here. My view of the religion is significantly better than most of the people I see who try to figure it out for themselves.


Quote:

I was a Muslim for over a decade and I've lived with one for almost two.

Sorry, I didn't realise. I knew you were married to one. Do you mind if I ask why you apostasised?

Would you have been punished with death by stoning if you had apostasised in one of the historical Muslim states?

Quote:

Do you mind if I ask why you apostasised?

Did you ever read the story of Baby P in England? It’s a particularly disgusting case in which social workers and doctors failed to pick up the signs of child abuse in a little boy, despite horrific injuries like a broken spine and finger tips that had been bitten off. I was asked to consider it for an op-ed article and after I read about it, I had a big tantrum and cried for hours. When I was finished, I asked myself how any higher power could allow that to happen to a child and eventually realised I couldn’t believe in God at all.  

Now I’m not so sure what I believe and I’m in no great hurry to find out.



Quote:

Would you have been punished with death by stoning if you had apostasised in one of the historical Muslim states?

Maybe. I have to say though, I'm surrounded by Muslims (husband, friends, in-laws) and nobody has really treated me any differently.

Quote:

I tried looking but couldn't find anything on Jewish supporters of death by stoning. I did find this on wikipedia though:

Just a few more links regarding Jewish movements to re-institute a Halachic state system.


Quote:

Brit HaKanaim (Hebrew: בְּרִית הַקַנַאִים‎‎, lit. Covenant of the Zealots) Among its members were Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, who later served as the Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, and Shlomo Lorincz who later served as chairman of the Knesset Finance Committee as a member of Agudat Yisrael... The ultimate goal of the movement was to impose Jewish religious law in the State of Israel and establish a Halakhic state... The organisation's members trained using stolen weaponry, and would torch the vehicles of individuals who drove during Shabbat and the shops of butchers that sold non-kosher meat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_HaKanaim


Quote:

Kach (Hebrew: כ"ך‎, "Thus") the party entered the Knesset in 1984 after several electoral failures... The party advocated a Jewish state in accordance with the Hebrew Bible... Today the United States continues to designate the group a terrorist organization [16], and says that it has engaged in terrorist activity by:    * using explosives or firearms with intent to endanger the safety of individuals or cause substantial damage to property (including an attempt to car bomb a Palestinian girls school in East Jerusalem)    * threatening and conspiring to carry out assassinations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kach_and_Kahane_Chai


Quote:

Mainstream Israeli Political Parties United Torah Judaism (UTJ) and Shas in principle aspire to the transformation of Israel into a Halachic state. UTJ currently holds 5 seats in the Knesset, whilst Shas holds 11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halakhic_state


Quote:

The State of Judea (Hebrew: מְדִינַת יְהוּדָה‎‎, Medīnat Yəhuda) is a proposed halachic state in the West Bank put forward by Israeli Jewish settlers...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Judea


Quote:

Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin The latest effort was in 2004 when a group of seventy one rabbis claiming to represent varied communities in Israel undertook a ceremony in Tiberias, where the original Sanhedrin was disbanded. That group claimed to re-establish the body, based on the proposal of Maimonides and the Jewish legal rulings of Rabbi Yosef Karo. As of March, 2010 that effort is still ongoing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_attempts_to_revive_the_Sanhedrin

What is Islam's approach to the concept of innocence? Is it the same as in the modern world, or does it have subtly different meanings in Islam like so many other words?

Were the 9/11 victims 'in a sense' not innocent?

Are there any examples of collective punishment in the Koran that may shed light on this mentality?

Quote:

What is Islam's approach to the concept of innocence? Is it the same as in the modern world, or does it have subtly different meanings in Islam like so many other words?

We both know you don't want to know what Islam says on it, you are going to make it up yourself and twist some "subtle obscured hidden meaning" into it.

freediver you may as well go and have the conservation with yourself, that's what usually ends up happening anyway.

Actually I would like to know what Islam says on it. Hence the question. Thanks in advance Abu.

Annie:


Quote:

The Taliban were hardly model Muslims either.

Abu and Falah seem to think they are.


Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 6^th, 2010 at 4:06pm:

I didn't tell you to figure it out for yourself. I asked if you'd thought of actually reading the Quran to find the answers you're looking for. I know if I wanted to learn about Christianity I'd read the Bible. You're curious about Islamic law - go straight to the source and make up your own mind then discuss.  At least you will then be able to do so with some authority. My husband and I can read the same verse in the Quran and come up with completely different interpretations because we're coming from different perspectives. There are scholars that support his view and scholars that support mine.

Annie I am not actually interested in how I might interpret the Koran and I doubt anyone else is either. I am interested in how Muslims interpret it. 'Make up your own mind' would be a perfectly valid approach if Abu and Falah did not advocate killing shites for example because they have the wrong interpretation.


Quote:

Also since Jews are usually not as open as Muslims about their beliefs

LOL Abu. I have never seen anyone as ashamed of their own beliefs as you and Falah.

---

Falah has let the cat out of the bag:


falah wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 2:06pm:

The first tribe of Jews were expelled from Madina after molesting a Muslim woman and the mob-killing of a Muslim man openly in the jewish market.

falah wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:51pm:

Garbage Freeliar. Less than 0.1% of Palestinian population involved in firing a virtually useless homemade rocket is not the same as about 50% of a Jewish tribe being involved in a violent public homicide following a a Jewish sexual assault.

falah wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 6:51pm:

Totally incorrect. The Jewish tribes of Madina were warned many times to honour their treaties and were given many warnings before they were expelled - and most of them were expelled not killed. They were expelled because they kept violating their promises and treaties. They were treated on a case by case basis, but each Jewish tribe in Madina eventually broke their treaties and acted treacherously - some more so than others.

We are talking about a tribe consisting of about 100 or 200 people. Most of their adult men were involved in a public murder in one of the marketplaces of Madina following a sexual assault committed by a Jew.

By rights, the Muslims could have executed all those Jewish men for their involvement in the murder. Exiling the Jewish murderers, instead of having them executed, was actually very merciful  - in fact a level of mercy unheard of before.

Of course, Freeliar wonders why the women and children of that tribe were also exiled. Perhaps he thinks that they would stay without their men.



The leaders of each Jewish tribe in Madina had signed treaties with the Islamic state, and as such were allowed to stay in the Islamic state with previlidges such as being exempt from paying tax, on the condition that their warriors contribute to the safety of the city of Madina.

The Qunayqa tribe broke this treaty by murdering a Muslim in a mob attack. This meant they had collectivley broken the treaty, and forfeited their right to live in the Islamic state as a tribe.

However, individual Jews were free to petition for permission to live in the Islamic state on an individual basis. Many did and were granted permission to stay, and they were so impressed with the mercy shown by the Muslims that they converted to Islam.

Other Jewish tribes living in Madina were not or exiled or punished for the mob murder.

Other Jews living throughout the Islamic state were not punished for the mob murder.

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 8:51am:

LOL Abu. I have never seen anyone as ashamed of their own beliefs as you and Falah.

What garbage. Go and try buying a copy of the Talmud... good luck. Try finding a Jewish website that explains the intricacies of Jewish beliefs and customs, good luck. You can find millions of sites dedicated to promoting Islamic knowledge, you just reject every single one of them because you believe it to be biased.

Honestly don't you feel ashamed peddling this crap? don't you feel like your credibility just keeps shrinking every single time you post these lies and half baked claims?

abu_rashid wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 10:20am:

freediver wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 8:51am: LOL Abu. I have never seen anyone as ashamed of their own beliefs as you and Falah. What garbage. Go and try buying a copy of the Talmud... good luck. Try finding a Jewish website that explains the intricacies of Jewish beliefs and customs, good luck. You can find millions of sites dedicated to promoting Islamic knowledge, you just reject every single one of them because you believe it to be biased. Honestly don't you feel ashamed peddling this crap? don't you feel like your credibility just keeps shrinking every single time you post these lies and half baked claims?

No Abu. What I find is that it leaves out the interesting bits and gives a very sugar coated version of Islamic law. You are hardly any better. When I try to ask you a straight question I get endless diversions.

For example, you have not even attempted to explain the Islamic concept of innocence and collective punishment. Given the well known cases of Muslim leaders publicly declaring that Muslims should not slaughter innocent people, while privately explaining to their followers that only Muslims are innocent, there is a natural interest in this. They are hardly going to put a little asterisk beside innocent on their website to tell non-Muslims the term does not apply to them.

If you are not prepared to talk about the political aspects of Islam, what is the point of hosting an Islam board on a politics forum?

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 12:17pm:

abu_rashid wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 10:20am: freediver wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 8:51am: LOL Abu. I have never seen anyone as ashamed of their own beliefs as you and Falah. What garbage. Go and try buying a copy of the Talmud... good luck. Try finding a Jewish website that explains the intricacies of Jewish beliefs and customs, good luck. You can find millions of sites dedicated to promoting Islamic knowledge, you just reject every single one of them because you believe it to be biased. Honestly don't you feel ashamed peddling this crap? don't you feel like your credibility just keeps shrinking every single time you post these lies and half baked claims? No Abu. What I find is that it leaves out the interesting bits and gives a very sugar coated version of Islamic law. You are hardly any better. When I try to ask you a straight question I get endless diversions.

So you know how I feel FD

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 8:51am:

LOL Abu. I have never seen anyone as ashamed of their own beliefs as you and Falah.

Ha! Coming from someone who won't tell us what he believes...but hides behind a bunch of sock puppets.

Islam is the truth. It is monotheism sent by God Almighty, the perfect religion.

Oh I see. Thanks for explaining Falah. What is it's stance on concepts like innocence and collective punishment?

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 5:52pm:

Oh I see. Thanks for explaining Falah. What is it's stance on concepts like innocence and collective punishment?

In Islam people are considered innocent until proven guilty. There is no collective punishment in Islam.

Collective punishment is something used by Israeli Jews against Palestinians.

The presumption of innocence is something denied to thousands of prisoners in Israeli and US prisons like Gunatanamo. Maybe it is a Biblical thing to assume uilty until proven innocent.

falah wrote on May 27^th, 2012 at 11:06am:

There is no collective punishment in Islam.

So how do we interpret this?


falah wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 2:06pm:

The first tribe of Jews were expelled from Madina after molesting a Muslim woman and the mob-killing of a Muslim man openly in the jewish market.

Did the entire tribe molest the woman?

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2012 at 11:08am:

falah wrote on May 27th, 2012 at 11:06am: There is no collective punishment in Islam. So how do we interpret this? falah wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 2:06pm: The first tribe of Jews were expelled from Madina after molesting a Muslim woman and the mob-killing of a Muslim man openly in the jewish market. Did the entire tribe molest the woman?

Which do you think is the more important part of the sentence Freeliar; "mob-murder" or "molesting"?

They are both serious, but I am sure even you can work which is the more serious of the two.

So the entire tribe came out to participate in the murder?

You included the reference to molesting a woman, not me.

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2012 at 11:19am:

So the entire tribe came out to participate in the murder? You included the reference to molesting a woman, not me.

Enough of the tribe were involved to consider it a violation of a treaty.

Consider this, does the every soldier of the North Korea army need to attack South Korea before we consider it a violation of the treaties/armistice arangements? If only half of North Korea's army attacked the South, would the South need to continue holding the ceasefire?


As I have said earlier the tribe's right to exist as a state within a state was revoked upon the violation of the treaty. Jews were still permitted to remain in Madina on an individual basis.

Quote:

Consider this, does the every soldier of the North Korea army need to attack South Korea before we consider it a violation of the treaties/armistice arangements?

No, but there is an enourmous gap between that and the murder of a South Korean person in North Korea and the molestation of a woman. That hardly sounds like an act of war. It sounds like collective punishment.

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2012 at 11:40am:

Quote: Consider this, does the every soldier of the North Korea army need to attack South Korea before we consider it a violation of the treaties/armistice arangements? No, but there is an enourmous gap between that and the murder of a South Korean person in North Korea and the molestation of a woman. That hardly sounds like an act of war. It sounds like collective punishment.

Again you try to deceive and twist things Freeliar.

Why do you say "murder of a South Korean person in North Korea"?  That is deliberately deceptive.


It was not a simple murder, but a killing that involved a large number of warriors from a Jewish tribe.

A more correct analogy would be if half of North Korea's army killed people in South Korea.

A large number of Jews from the Qunayqa tribe killed a Muslim in Muslim territory.

I thought you said it happened in the Jew's marketplace.

Not that it makes any difference. It is still the murder of one person, not an act of war. Not sure why you think it was so complicated. Are you leaving out some details?

How many people do you think were involved? Did the whole tribe turn up to murder the Muslim?

Nothing you say makes it look less like collective punishment.

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2012 at 12:46pm:

I thought you said it happened in the Jew's marketplace.

There was a place in the Islamic city of Madina where Jews came to sell their wares.


freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2012 at 12:46pm:

It is still the murder of one person, not an act of war.

The murder of one person can violate the terms of a treaty.






freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2012 at 12:46pm:

Nothing you say makes it look less like collective punishment.

The Jewish state/tribe violated the treaty. Individual Jews could stay, but their right to live as a state within a state was revoked.

It is not punishment, but a revocation of a treaty.

Why did you say they were expelled?

You cannot expel statehood, only people.

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2012 at 12:54pm:

Why did you say they were expelled? You cannot expel statehood, only people.

The tribe was expelled, individual Jews were able to apply for permission to stay. Of course those known to be involved in the murder would not be given permission to stay.

falah wrote on May 27^th, 2012 at 12:58pm:

freediver wrote on May 27th, 2012 at 12:54pm: Why did you say they were expelled? You cannot expel statehood, only people. The tribe was expelled, individual Jews were able to apply for permission to stay. Of course those known to be involved in the murder would not be given permission to stay.

How can you expel a tribe without expelling the people in it?

Was the tribe expelled first and people had to then apply for permission to go back to their homes?

If Muhammed knew who the murderers were, why didn't he just punish them rather than using collective punishment? Was it just a convenient excuse to change his mind about not taxing the Jews?

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2012 at 1:17pm:

If Muhammed knew who the murderers were, why didn't he just punish them rather than using collective punishment? Was it just a convenient excuse to change his mind about not taxing the Jews?

Do you you know what tribalism is like. In the tribalism prevalent in the times, people did not give up those from their own easily. Even today we see that France and Russia do not extradite their own citizens. The Jews weren't going to have dozens of their warriors executed. Expelling the tribe averted a war. Many lives were saved.

The Qaynuqa tribe were basically gypsies anyhow and owned no land. So they were better off to be expelled than lose many of their men.

Anyway, it is not collective punishment, because those who were not antagonistic towards Muslims and wished to stay were allowed to stay.

Quote:

Do you you know what tribalism is like. In the tribalism prevalent in the times, people did not give up those from their own easily.

Being expelled from a nation is not exactly easy either.


Quote:

The Jewish tribes of Madina were warned many times to honour their treaties and were given many warnings before they were expelled - and most of them were expelled not killed.

Most of them?


Quote:

The Jews weren't going to have dozens of their warriors executed. Expelling the tribe averted a war. Many lives were saved.

Didn't you just finish explaining that the entire tribe was only 100 to 200 people? How could they possibly go to war against the Caliphate?

Also, since when does forcing everyone to flee avert a war?


Quote:

Anyway, it is not collective punishment, because those who were not antagonistic towards Muslims and wished to stay were allowed to stay.

Which brings us back to the question, how can you expel a tribe without expelling the people in it?


Quote:

Anyway, it is not collective punishment, because those who were not antagonistic towards Muslims and wished to stay were allowed to stay.

How did Muhammed know which ones were not involved in the murder? Didn't you just explain that the Jews would not give up their own?

None of this makes sense Falah. You are trying to spin collective punishment into a merciful act, but the facts speak for themselves.