|
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
By Jassik 2015-12-12 11:52:46
Eh, you have to be careful about speaking about any group collectively, but that's not a new thing, the bigotry if often embodies has just become less acceptable.
Except white people. Its open season on white people, every month of the year!
White males have historically been at the top of the food chain. I think people just aren't used to being subject to the same scrutiny basically every minority has at some point in history. Various white races have been in the hated minority as well, Jews, the Irish and Italian immigrants, Slavs, etc. Times change and the rhetoric with them. I just ignore the sycophants.
By fonewear 2015-12-12 11:58:01
White men are almost guaranteed to be one of the following: racist sexist homophobic violent dumb overweight video game playing beer drinking wife beaters !
By maldini 2015-12-12 12:02:25
White men are almost guaranteed to be one of the following: racist sexist homophobic violent dumb overweight video game playing beer drinking wife beaters ! you forgot pedophile.
[+]
 Valefor.Sehachan
サーバ: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2015-12-12 12:04:30
So, president of Gambia claimed today "From now on Gambia is an islamic state!"
I mean, Gambia already had over 90% of its population of muslim faith, so...uh?? What changed?
By Jassik 2015-12-12 12:08:26
So, president of Gambia claimed today "From now on Gambia is an islamic state!"
I mean, Gambia already had over 90% of its population of muslim faith, so...uh?? What changed?
Officially, just the national religion. It already had a pretty strongly Muslim government and laws. Not Sharia, but definitely more draconian that the West. Anti-gay laws, decency laws, etc.
I don't see much else changing for them, the country is already like 96% Muslim and the people are poorer than dirt.
By maldini 2015-12-12 12:15:23
So, president of Gambia claimed today "From now on Gambia is an islamic state!"
I mean, Gambia already had over 90% of its population of muslim faith, so...uh?? What changed?
There's a huge difference. The Islamic world's political spectrum is even more vast than the western world's.
You have populations that want politics out of religion, and religion out of politics (secularist muslims).
Then of course within those different groups you have people who have different interpretations of what Islam is. Those that put emphasis on Hadith and those that put emphasis on the Quran.
Its 1.8 billion people and hundreds of thousands of different schools of thought.
By Gambia saying they are an Islamic state, they are saying they will use religion in politics.
The UAE for example, is an Islamic Secular state. A hybrid. Where you have different courts for different issues. (Civil, Criminal and Religious court).
Religious courts are primarily for things such as inheritance law, marriage and divorce law or anything else where there is a clear direction from the Quran.
[+]
By charlo999 2015-12-12 12:30:05
Yep it means instead of Islam being a majority faith and influence within a seperated politicaly structured country, they are now gonna be directly governed by sharia law and the politics of Islam.
Valefor.Sehachan
サーバ: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2015-12-12 12:30:23
By Gambia saying they are an Islamic state, they are saying they will use religion in politics. That's all that was needed.
Anyway I doubt it'd be much different from how they run the country now. I mean, I never looked into gambian laws, so just assuming.
By Jassik 2015-12-12 12:35:09
Yep it means instead of Islam being a majority faith and influence within a seperated politicaly structured country, they are now gonna be directly governed by sharia law and the politics of Islam.
Uh, no, they already had Muslim religious laws, just not Sharia. And, I know this has been explained to you countless times, but not all or even most Muslim states use Sharia as their laws.
By maldini 2015-12-12 12:39:04
Yep it means instead of Islam being a majority faith within a seperated politicaly structured country, they are now gonna be governed by sharia law and the politics of Islam.
I just want to put this out there because its such as a misunderstood word and concept - Sharia Law.
Its an Arabic word that is used to signify a concept that basically means "law".. so when people (ignorant non-arab speaking Muslims included) use the phrase "Sharia law" - they have no idea what they're talking about. its like saying "the law law".
Sharia is law.
So Sharia (or read law) in Afghanistan differs greatly than sharia (law) in Iran.
Its basically more or less like a non native english speaker saying "democratic democracy governance".
Sharia has many ways of being established, one of them is Shura. Which means collective consultancy legislature. It is one of the aspects of Islam that inspired and influenced Locke in his Tabula Rasa.
Just don't try to oversimplify things by saying "sharia law"...
Sharia also has different ways of establishing law, other than "Shura", including "Ihsan" which means "progressive reasoning and rationality".
So you can see how two different countries both claiming to practice Sharia can come to very different sets of laws.
Much like how you can have 2 democratic secular countries be capitalist and socialist, or one be a plutocracy and another an oligarchy.
Valefor.Sehachan
サーバ: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2015-12-12 12:40:53
its like saying "the law law" That's awesome and I'm going to use that definition from now on.
[+]
By maldini 2015-12-12 12:47:32
Yep it means instead of Islam being a majority faith and influence within a seperated politicaly structured country, they are now gonna be directly governed by sharia law and the politics of Islam.
Uh, no, they already had Muslim religious laws, just not Sharia. And, I know this has been explained to you countless times, but not all or even most Muslim states use Sharia as their laws.
There's no such thing as religious law in Islam. There is just "Law".
Religious law translated into arabic would be "Qanoon Dinee".
And that phrase exists nowhere in the Arab world.
Here's the thing, Islam doesn't seperate law between worldly and heavenly. There is just simply straight forward direction on what to do and what not to do.
Some law comes directly from the Quran, for example on how to get married and what rights men and women have.
Other laws come from the process of Tashree3 (making legislature). There are different ways and methods that I mentioned previously.
Islam wasn't sent to be a political system. Even though some muslims would like you to believe so. It was sent to improve the condition of the individual and the community. It provides a very big open playing field for the people of a nation or community to govern themselves. There are several Islamic traditions that state going against the community is wrong, and there are even rules of engagement in war.
[+]
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2015-12-12 12:57:09
Eh, you have to be careful about speaking about any group collectively, but that's not a new thing, the bigotry if often embodies has just become less acceptable.
Except white people. Its open season on white people, every month of the year!
White males have historically been at the top of the food chain. I think people just aren't used to being subject to the same scrutiny basically every minority has at some point in history. Various white races have been in the hated minority as well, Jews, the Irish and Italian immigrants, Slavs, etc. Times change and the rhetoric with them. I just ignore the sycophants.
I feel like most white Americans just aren't used to being criticized and defined by their race. It's usually been a card to play for a perk, never really a detriment. Unless you travel to some third world hovel where it's a gamble you either get treated like some god or become the target of post-colonial hatreds.
There's an honesty that comes with being self-aware that being white is a perk onto itself but hey, some people rather lie and claim white people are being oppressed by you know, being criticized roundly.
Meanwhile, every other minority has been defined by their race. You know, 'that black guy', 'that hispanic chick' or 'that asian dude'. Cue the flying watermelons, a mariachi band and a samurai committing seppuku.
Doesn't feel so good, now does it.
[+]
By Jassik 2015-12-12 12:58:59
Yep it means instead of Islam being a majority faith and influence within a seperated politicaly structured country, they are now gonna be directly governed by sharia law and the politics of Islam.
Uh, no, they already had Muslim religious laws, just not Sharia. And, I know this has been explained to you countless times, but not all or even most Muslim states use Sharia as their laws.
There's no such thing as religious law in Islam. There is just "Law".
Religious law translated into arabic would be "Qanoon Dinee".
And that phrase exists nowhere in the Arab world.
Here's the thing, Islam doesn't seperate law between worldly and heavenly. There is just simply straight forward direction on what to do and what not to do.
Some law comes directly from the Quran, for example on how to get married and what rights men and women have.
Other laws come from the process of Tashree3 (making legislature). There are different ways and methods that I mentioned previously.
Islam wasn't sent to be a political system. Even though some muslims would like you to believe so. It was sent to improve the condition of the individual and the community. It provides a very big open playing field for the people of a nation or community to govern themselves. There are several Islamic traditions that state going against the community is wrong, and there are even rules of engagement in war.
How would you differentiate Sharia in places like IS from Sharia in places like UAE to a person who thinks all Muslims are just violent terrorists in the making? I can't think of a better way than reserving "Sharia" for the draconian fundamentalist states.
By maldini 2015-12-12 13:32:25
Yep it means instead of Islam being a majority faith and influence within a seperated politicaly structured country, they are now gonna be directly governed by sharia law and the politics of Islam.
Uh, no, they already had Muslim religious laws, just not Sharia. And, I know this has been explained to you countless times, but not all or even most Muslim states use Sharia as their laws.
There's no such thing as religious law in Islam. There is just "Law".
Religious law translated into arabic would be "Qanoon Dinee".
And that phrase exists nowhere in the Arab world.
Here's the thing, Islam doesn't seperate law between worldly and heavenly. There is just simply straight forward direction on what to do and what not to do.
Some law comes directly from the Quran, for example on how to get married and what rights men and women have.
Other laws come from the process of Tashree3 (making legislature). There are different ways and methods that I mentioned previously.
Islam wasn't sent to be a political system. Even though some muslims would like you to believe so. It was sent to improve the condition of the individual and the community. It provides a very big open playing field for the people of a nation or community to govern themselves. There are several Islamic traditions that state going against the community is wrong, and there are even rules of engagement in war.
How would you differentiate Sharia in places like IS from Sharia in places like UAE to a person who thinks all Muslims are just violent terrorists in the making? I can't think of a better way than reserving "Sharia" for the draconian fundamentalist states.
By pointing out that all religions, all countries have their crazies. I'd also try to draw a parallel and make it relevant and understandable to them, quickly.
So for Americans I would say "imagine if all christians were held responsible for the actions of the KKK". Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the KKK believe they are just doing God's work (the God of Christianity).
Its dangerous to generalize is what I would try to get across, because your enemy might be 10,000 strong in reality, but because of generalizations, they become 1.8 billion strong either as a result of how one ignorantly perceives the situation, or because they end up forcing them to be enemies through their actions. (Trump for example, is quickly waking up to the realization that more than 40% of his business exists in nations that are considered Muslim, and the other 60% that exists in the EU/US is being effected as well). That one comment cost his over 2 Billion in business here in the UAE, over night.
To be brutally honest, the entire misunderstanding and vagueness of the term itself (Sharia) is due to the ignorance of many non native Arabic speaking Muslims.
They're also the main culprits in perpetuating its misuse, thus its misunderstanding by non muslims.
By charlo999 2015-12-12 13:36:49
Yep it means instead of Islam being a majority faith within a seperated politicaly structured country, they are now gonna be governed by sharia law and the politics of Islam.
I just want to put this out there because its such as a misunderstood word and concept - Sharia Law.
Its an Arabic word that is used to signify a concept that basically means "law".. so when people (ignorant non-arab speaking Muslims included) use the phrase "Sharia law" - they have no idea what they're talking about. its like saying "the law law".
Sharia is law.
So Sharia (or read law) in Afghanistan differs greatly than sharia (law) in Iran.
Its basically more or less like a non native english speaker saying "democratic democracy governance".
Sharia has many ways of being established, one of them is Shura. Which means collective consultancy legislature. It is one of the aspects of Islam that inspired and influenced Locke in his Tabula Rasa.
Just don't try to oversimplify things by saying "sharia law"...
Sharia also has different ways of establishing law, other than "Shura", including "Ihsan" which means "progressive reasoning and rationality".
So you can see how two different countries both claiming to practice Sharia can come to very different sets of laws.
Much like how you can have 2 democratic secular countries be capitalist and socialist, or one be a plutocracy and another an oligarchy.
Not really the direct translation of sharia is "the way"
Quote: DEFINITION of 'Sharia'
Islamic religious law that governs not only religious rituals, but aspects of day-to-day life in Islam. Sharia, literally translated, means "the way"
So you could say "law of the way"
They add "law" in the translation to help he reader outside Islamic knowledge define it. It's not really needed as the word sharia in itself explains it. It's hardly a big deal though. As if those who use it don't understand it.
It means holy laws based on the Quran, and hadiths.(following muhammeds life as an example that should be followed)
It is only flexible in certain areas because different Muslims value differing hadiths above others.
Also as the Quran and hadiths don't have answers and laws for every single area of a Muslims life. This is where Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) comes in. The basics are the same though depending on the Hadith used.
Some are always valid.
NO form of sharia would make homosexuality legal and no form of sharia would have women equal or above men in any area. There are many more.
There is no split of religious or political, as sharia is all encompassing. It's the governance of the Muslims WHOLE life.
By maldini 2015-12-12 14:13:14
Yep it means instead of Islam being a majority faith within a seperated politicaly structured country, they are now gonna be governed by sharia law and the politics of Islam.
I just want to put this out there because its such as a misunderstood word and concept - Sharia Law.
Its an Arabic word that is used to signify a concept that basically means "law".. so when people (ignorant non-arab speaking Muslims included) use the phrase "Sharia law" - they have no idea what they're talking about. its like saying "the law law".
Sharia is law.
So Sharia (or read law) in Afghanistan differs greatly than sharia (law) in Iran.
Its basically more or less like a non native english speaker saying "democratic democracy governance".
Sharia has many ways of being established, one of them is Shura. Which means collective consultancy legislature. It is one of the aspects of Islam that inspired and influenced Locke in his Tabula Rasa.
Just don't try to oversimplify things by saying "sharia law"...
Sharia also has different ways of establishing law, other than "Shura", including "Ihsan" which means "progressive reasoning and rationality".
So you can see how two different countries both claiming to practice Sharia can come to very different sets of laws.
Much like how you can have 2 democratic secular countries be capitalist and socialist, or one be a plutocracy and another an oligarchy.
Not really the direct translation of sharia is "the way"
Quote: DEFINITION of 'Sharia'
Islamic religious law that governs not only religious rituals, but aspects of day-to-day life in Islam. Sharia, literally translated, means "the way"
So you could say "law of the way"
They add "law" in the translation to help he reader outside Islamic knowledge define it. It's not really needed as the word sharia in itself explains it. It's hardly a big deal though. As if those who use it don't understand it.
It means holy laws based on the Quran, and hadiths.(following muhammeds life as an example that should be followed)
It is only flexible in certain areas because different Muslims value differing hadiths above others.
Also as the Quran and hadiths don't have answers and laws for every single area of a Muslims life. This is where Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) comes in. The basics are the same though depending on the Hadith used.
Some are always valid.
NO form of sharia would make homosexuality legal and no form of sharia would have women equal or above men in any area. There are many more.
There is no split of religious or political, as sharia is all encompassing. It's the governance of the Muslims WHOLE life.
you're partially right and partially wrong.
here you go, if you really want to understand it:
YouTube Video Placeholder
By charlo999 2015-12-12 14:46:56
You'll have to show me my mistake because I've failed to see it.
Quote from vid
Quote: its misunderstood as sharia is conflated with law Quote: Sharia is the Moral, ethical, legal and social system that God desires humans to live by.
If you know anything about the Quran and hadiths and muhammeds life you'll know Allah commands this desire to be spread forcefully when able.
Islam means 'Submission to Allah'
And when that's done on a legal, political level freedom and separation of state and religion is gone.
Sounds like he Contradicts himself. Not surprising really.
Then he goes on to say things forbidden under sharia. That would come under law too. Basically Islam legally running your life.
And then he goes on to describing punishment. Cutting off your hands for theft or stoning the woman for adultery and fornication.
He doesn't condem them he just tries to wriggle out of it saying, oh it would be hard to prove the sin or its ok as an exemplary case.
The problem Muslims have is, they are all to eager telling the world the benefits of sharia as a Muslim under Muslim rule.
They seem to forget or conveniently forget it doesn't apply to unbelievers or people living under sharia that go against it.
By Jassik 2015-12-12 14:50:46
Was there separation of church and state in Elizabethan England? Would you consider that in the same category as you consider literally every Muslim state?
By maldini 2015-12-12 16:59:04
You'll have to show me my mistake because I've failed to see it.
Quote from vid
Quote: its misunderstood as sharia is conflated with law Quote: Sharia is the Moral, ethical, legal and social system that God desires humans to live by.
If you know anything about the Quran and hadiths and muhammeds life you'll know Allah commands this desire to be spread forcefully when able.
Islam means 'Submission to Allah'
And when that's done on a legal, political level freedom and separation of state and religion is gone.
Sounds like he Contradicts himself. Not surprising really.
Then he goes on to say things forbidden under sharia. That would come under law too. Basically Islam legally running your life.
And then he goes on to describing punishment. Cutting off your hands for theft or stoning the woman for adultery and fornication.
He doesn't condem them he just tries to wriggle out of it saying, oh it would be hard to prove the sin or its ok as an exemplary case.
The problem Muslims have is, they are all to eager telling the world the benefits of sharia as a Muslim under Muslim rule.
They seem to forget or conveniently forget it doesn't apply to unbelievers or people living under sharia that go against it.
Are you even trying to understand or just looking to bend reality to suit your current opinion?
You claim:
Quote: If you know anything about the Quran and hadiths and muhammeds life you'll know Allah commands this desire to be spread forcefully when able.
Here's what the Quran says:
Quote: There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.
You're too predictable at this point though, so I bet the above quote doesn't really do anything to make you pause for second and think.
 Ragnarok.Zeig
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1593
By Ragnarok.Zeig 2015-12-12 17:21:19
You're too predictable at this point though, so I bet the above quote doesn't really do anything to make you pause for second and think. That's sadly why I stopped having any long conversations with him. He isn't interesred in meaningful discussion. He doesn't budge an inch when discussing any subject, copy/pastes quotes without even listing the source, and tries to force his opinion on you. In this case he'll keep going back and forth with you over the meaning of shari'a and how it should be applied, like an authority in the Islamic sciences, oversimplifying every Islamic issue as usual.
We get it charlo; you don't want those poor sheep to be deceived, so you try to do your best to scare them off Islam (which is ironic given your presumed "audience" on these forums). Don't worry, we won't steal them away from the true religion.
By charlo999 2015-12-12 18:16:08
I copy and paste because I don't need to give my opinion. Highly esteemed islamic scholars do it for me.
Tell do you hold ibn kathir's commentary in any regard?
Quote: Ibn Kathir
Allah said, (There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.
It was reported that the Ansar were the reason behind revealing this Ayah, although its indication is general in meaning. Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn `Abbas said [that before Islam], "When (an Ansar) woman would not bear children who would live, she would vow that if she gives birth to a child who remains alive, she would raise him as a Jew. When Banu An-Nadir (the Jewish tribe) were evacuated [from Al-Madinah], some of the children of the Ansar were being raised among them, and the Ansar said, `We will not abandon our children.' Allah revealed,
(There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path.)
Abu Dawud and An-Nasa'i also recorded this Hadith. As for the Hadith that Imam Ahmad recorded, in which Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said to a man,
("Embrace Islam." The man said, "I dislike it." The Prophet said, "Even if you dislike it.")
First, this is an authentic Hadith, with only three narrators between Imam Ahmad and the Prophet . However, it is not relevant to the subject under discussion, for the Prophet did not force that man to become Muslim. The Prophet merely invited this man to become Muslim, and he replied that he does not find himself eager to become Muslim. The Prophet said to the man that even though he dislikes embracing Islam, he should still embrace it, `for Allah will grant you sincerity and true intent.'
No Compulsion in Religion
Tafsir Ibn Kathir
Ibn Kathir in the version of his tafsir abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rafa‘i, has this to say (note that this portion has not been translated by Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri who is responsible for the abridged version of Tafsir Ibn Kathir widely available on the internet):
Allah says: "There is no compulsion in religion", meaning: do not force anyone to embrace Islam, because it is clear and its proofs and evidences are manifest. Whoever Allah guides and opens his heart to Islam has indeed embraced it with clear evidence. Whoever Allah misguides blinds his heart and has set a seal on his hearing and a covering on his eyes cannot embrace Islam by force...hence Allah revealed this verse. But, this verse is abrogated by the verse of "fighting...Therefore, all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizya they should be fought till they are killed. This is the meaning of compulsion. In the Sahih, the Prophet said: "Allah wonders at those people who will enter Paradise in chains", meaning prisoners brought in chains to the Islamic state, then they embrace Islam sincerely and become righteous, and are entered among the people of Paradise.[1]
Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Al-Firdous Ltd., London, 1999: First Edition, Part 3, pp. 37-38
Or maybe Al wahidi?
Quote: Al Wahidi
Al-Suddi said: “This verse was revealed about a man from the Helpers called Abu'l-Husayn. This man had two sons. It happened that some traders from Syria came to Medina to sell oil. When the traders were about to leave Medina, the two sons of Abu'l-Husayn called them to embrace Christianity. These traders converted to Christianity and then left Medina. Abu'l-Husayn informed the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, of what had happened. He asked him to summon his two sons. But then Allah, exalted is He, revealed (There is no compulsion in religion…). The Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, said: 'May Allah banish both of them. They are the first to disbelieve'. This was before the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, was commanded to fight the people of the Book. But then Allah's saying (There is no compulsion in religion…) was abrogated and the Prophet was commanded to fight the people of the Book in Surah Repentance”.
The reasons for the descent of the verse number (256) of Sura (The Cow)
Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi, trans. Mokrane Guezzou
Or
Quote: M. Ayoub
Mujahid said, "This was before the Apostle of God was commanded to fight against the People of the Book. God’s saying, ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ was abrogated and he was commanded to fight against the People of the Book in Surat Bara‘ah" (Q. 9:29). (Wahidi, pp. 77-78) … According to other traditions, the verse was revealed in reference to the People of the Book, who should not be compelled to enter Islam so long as they pay jizyah (poll tax). The verse is, therefore, not abrogated. Tabari relates on the authority of Qatadah, "Arab society was compelled to enter Islam because they were an unlettered community [ummah ummiyah], having no book which they knew. Thus nothing other than Islam was accepted from them. The people of the Book are not to be compelled to enter Islam if they submit to paying the jizyah or kharaj [land tax]." The same view is related on the authority of al-Dahhak, Mujahid, and Ibn ‘Abbas (Tabari, V. pp. 413-414). Tabari agrees with this view and asserts that the verse applies to the people of the two Books (Jews and Christians) and the Zoroastrians (Majus)… Qurtubi relates yet another view which asserts, "It was in reference to captives who, if they are of the People of the Book, are not to be compelled if they are adults; but if they are Zoroastrians or idolators, be they old or young, they shall be forced to accept Islam. This is because their master could not benefit from them if they were idolators." Qurtubi adds, "Do you not see that animals slaughtered by them would be unlawful to eat and their women could be married [to Muslims]? They practise the eating of carrion and other such unclean things. Thus their master would find them unclean and therefore it would be difficult to benefit from them as his slaves. Hence, it becomes lawfull for him to compel them" (Qurtubi, II, p. 280; see also Shawkani, I, p. 275).
The Qur’an and it Interpreters
Mahmoud M. Ayoub, SUNY Press, 1984, Volume I, pp. 253-254
Or
Quote: Sobhi Saleh
[Referring to 2:256 and 9:73] The command to fight the infidels was delayed until the Muslims become strong, but when they were weak they were commanded to endure and be patient.
Mabaheth Fi 'Ulum al-Qur'an
Sobhy as-Saleh, Dar al-'Ilm Lel-Malayeen, Beirut, 1983, p. 269
Or
Quote: M. Ayoub
Mujahid said, "This was before the Apostle of God was commanded to fight against the People of the Book. God’s saying, ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ was abrogated and he was commanded to fight against the People of the Book in Surat Bara‘ah" (Q. 9:29). (Wahidi, pp. 77-78) … According to other traditions, the verse was revealed in reference to the People of the Book, who should not be compelled to enter Islam so long as they pay jizyah (poll tax). The verse is, therefore, not abrogated. Tabari relates on the authority of Qatadah, "Arab society was compelled to enter Islam because they were an unlettered community [ummah ummiyah], having no book which they knew. Thus nothing other than Islam was accepted from them. The people of the Book are not to be compelled to enter Islam if they submit to paying the jizyah or kharaj [land tax]." The same view is related on the authority of al-Dahhak, Mujahid, and Ibn ‘Abbas (Tabari, V. pp. 413-414). Tabari agrees with this view and asserts that the verse applies to the people of the two Books (Jews and Christians) and the Zoroastrians (Majus)… Qurtubi relates yet another view which asserts, "It was in reference to captives who, if they are of the People of the Book, are not to be compelled if they are adults; but if they are Zoroastrians or idolators, be they old or young, they shall be forced to accept Islam. This is because their master could not benefit from them if they were idolators." Qurtubi adds, "Do you not see that animals slaughtered by them would be unlawful to eat and their women could be married [to Muslims]? They practise the eating of carrion and other such unclean things. Thus their master would find them unclean and therefore it would be difficult to benefit from them as his slaves. Hence, it becomes lawfull for him to compel them" (Qurtubi, II, p. 280; see also Shawkani, I, p. 275).
The Qur’an and it Interpreters
Mahmoud M. Ayoub, SUNY Press, 1984, Volume I, pp. 253-254 There's many, many many more if you would like me to post Muslim commentaries. Is this my opinion?
I'd rather do the research instead of listen to a face value sura pasted by you. The Quran NEEDS the hadiths to make any sense of it and to even have the knowledge of instruction to become a Muslim.
ISIS version of Islam seems to have more grounding than yours in these commentaries.
You will probably say maybe we can throw these away and make new meanings.
Ok well the Quran commands this in this sura and many others
Quote: 8:24 SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
O you who have believed, respond to Allah and to the Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life. And know that Allah intervenes between a man and his heart and that to Him you will be gathered.
Well who does the messenger tell Muslims to follow after Allah and himself. Who are the best
Quote: Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 8.686 Narrated byZ ahdam bin Mudarrab
'Imran bin Hussain said, "The Prophet said, 'The best of you (people) are my generation, and the second best will be those who will follow them, and then those who will follow the second generation."
Were these Muslims carrying out violent forceful jihad based on the most solid holy hadiths. YES.
The very quote you paste looked at
By fonewear 2015-12-12 19:33:09
Yea Muslims v Christianity round 8 million is fine but this is more important:
Obama just saved the world!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-paris_566c2048e4b0e292150e169b?dthme7b9
After two weeks of tense talks, word-wrangling and marathon overnight meetings, diplomats in Paris agreed to a global climate change accord on Saturday evening -- a day after the summit's scheduled conclusion.
Leaders and experts cheered the historic agreement that emerged from the 21st Conference of the Parties, or COP21, calling it ambitious and realistic, and a crucial step in protecting the Earth for future generations.
"The decisive deal for the planet is here," French President François Hollande told delegates Saturday morning, shortly before releasing the final draft. Outside, thousands of protesters had begun filling Paris streets in an appeal for a strong climate pact.
Some advocates, however, lamented that the deal falls short. They pointed to a lack of a specific timescale for phasing out fossil fuels, for example, as well as weak language on monitoring and verifying countries' greenhouse gas emission reductions.
"This agreement won't save the planet, not even close," Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org, a climate advocacy group, told The Huffington Post in an email. "But it's possible that it saves the chance of saving the planet -- if movements push even harder from here on out."
By fonewear 2015-12-12 19:35:03
I love how the headline is this will save the planet then some guy named Bill says this won't save the planet few paragraphs below.
 Garuda.Chanti
サーバ: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11333
By Garuda.Chanti 2015-12-12 21:26:10
Its fairly meaningless Fone.
I posted an article on it under the climate thread.
http://www.ffxiah.com/forum/topic/47271/agw-theory-discussion/33/
Ragnarok.Zeig
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1593
By Ragnarok.Zeig 2015-12-13 12:57:10
Yea Muslims v Christianity round 8 million is fine but this is more important More like "Attack on Islam".
ِAlso, this is beautiful:
YouTube Video Placeholder
First step towards establishing a caliphate in North America done
[+]
By maldini 2015-12-13 13:03:10
Yea Muslims v Christianity round 8 million is fine but this is more important More like "Attack on Islam".
ِAlso, this is beautiful:
YouTube Video Placeholder
First step towards establishing a caliphate in North America done
History repeats itself
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-12-13 16:29:54
Yea Muslims v Christianity round 8 million is fine but this is more important More like "Attack on Islam".
ِAlso, this is beautiful:
YouTube Video Placeholder
First step towards establishing a caliphate in North America done Is it me, or is that symbol on those kids shirts look a whole lot like dog ***?
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 8022
By Shiva.Viciousss 2015-12-13 20:01:55
GOP lineup announced for CNN Debate (12/15/15)
9 people again. Too many if it is going to be a 2 hour debate. I hope CNN learned from the first debate they hosted. 3 hour debate, with a 10 minute intermission in the middle. Let the candidates leave the stage, sit down, get a drink, and then come back out. Can easily fill that 10 mins with analysis.
But if its only a 2 hour debate, there will be quite a few candidates that only see single digits of speaking time, and they will be fighting to be heard the entire time.
 Leviathan.Chaosx
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2015-12-14 00:55:13
Fox News story:
Quote: Santa Claus is banned. The Pledge of Allegiance is no longer recited. “Harvest festival” has replaced Thanksgiving, and “winter celebrations” substitute for Christmas parties.
New principal Eujin Jaela Kim has given PS 169 in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, a politically correct scrub-down, to the dismay of teachers and parents.
“We definitely can’t say Christmas, nothing with Christmas on it, nothing with Santa,” PTA President Mimi Ferrer said administrators told her. “No angels. We can’t even have a star because it can represent a religious system, like the Star of David.”
Kim, 33, did not return a call or e-mail seeking comment.
A memo last month from assistant principal Jose Chaparro suggested a “harvest festival instead of Thanksgiving or a winter celebration instead of a Christmas party.” He urged staff to “be sensitive of the diversity of our families. Not all children celebrate the same holidays.”
Ninety-five percent of the 1,600 kids at PS 169 are Asian or Hispanic.
[+]
Random Politics & Religion is for topics that aren't thread worthy on their own and do not have their own existing thread.
Rules and Guidelines
Forum Rules and P&R Section Guidelines still apply.
Satire is tolerated.
If your topic covers a story over 6 months old (Watergate, Benghazi, 2012 Election, etc.) post it here.
Discussions on racism, homophobia, transphobia, and the like are allowed, targeted insults based on these will not be tolerated.
Political debates get heated and are meant to be intense, if you take offense to being called or proven wrong, you don't belong here.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen; if you prove you can't handle the criticism you bring upon yourself in this thread, you may be removed from it. You are responsible for what you post.
Along those lines, heat is fine, but sustained, clearly personal hostility is not okay. The personal attack rules still apply. Attack positions, not posters. Failure to adhere to this will result in your removal from the thread.
This thread is NOT the Flame Core.
These rules are subject to change and modification where and when needed.
Random Politics & Religion may be mained or demained depending on the activity within at a Moderator's discretion.
With that out of the way, let the debates begin!
/bow
|
|
