I know what islam is really about

[Kalam]

Is there an Arabic word for these oppressors ?

Seems there is little doubt as to the use of the word oppressor in this verse.
In the Arabic the word is Zâlimûn
Polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust.

Equating shirk with zulm is a Wahhabi innovation. Of the thirty or so English translations of the Qur'an with which I'm familiar, the shoddy rendering you favor is the only one to make this error, with the possible exception of the orientalist George Sale's archaic translation which uses the word "ungodly."

See "zalama" under the Za-Lam-Miim trilateral root here:
Za

Or see Dr. Shabbir Ahmed's explanation of 2:193 -

And fight the aggressors until persecution is eliminated and there remains no compulsion or coercion in religion, the freedom that Allah has ordained (2:256). Anyone accepting the DEEN of Allah must do so freely and for His sake alone. ('Lillah' = For Allah's sake alone). And if the aggressors desist, then let there be no hostility except against those who displace peace with warfare. ('Zulm' = Displace something from its rightful place = Replace good with evil = Oppression = Relegation of the Truth = Violation of human rights = Doing wrong to oneself or others).​

2:254 deals unambiguously with divine judgment, and it is strictly within this context that disbelievers are considered thalimuuna - those who "fail" or are "wanting [in faith]." That this description carries no earthly significance is confirmed by 2:256 which plainly forbids compulsion in religion. You lack understanding of even the most basic Qur'anic terms. I'm afraid that the word's meaning is too broad to suit your purposes.

 

[Intense]

Is there an Arabic word for these oppressors ?

Seems there is little doubt as to the use of the word oppressor in this verse.
In the Arabic the word is Zâlimûn
Polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust.

Equating shirk with zulm is a Wahhabi innovation. Of the thirty or so English translations of the Qur'an with which I'm familiar, the shoddy rendering you favor is the only one to make this error, with the possible exception of the orientalist George Sale's archaic translation which uses the word "ungodly."

See "zalama" under the Za-Lam-Miim trilateral root here:
Za

Or see Dr. Shabbir Ahmed's explanation of 2:193 -

And fight the aggressors until persecution is eliminated and there remains no compulsion or coercion in religion, the freedom that Allah has ordained (2:256). Anyone accepting the DEEN of Allah must do so freely and for His sake alone. ('Lillah' = For Allah's sake alone). And if the aggressors desist, then let there be no hostility except against those who displace peace with warfare. ('Zulm' = Displace something from its rightful place = Replace good with evil = Oppression = Relegation of the Truth = Violation of human rights = Doing wrong to oneself or others).​

2:254 deals unambiguously with divine judgment, and it is strictly within this context that disbelievers are considered thalimuuna - those who "fail" or are "wanting [in faith]." That this description carries no earthly significance is confirmed by 2:256 which plainly forbids compulsion in religion. You lack understanding of even the most basic Qur'anic terms. I'm afraid that the word's meaning is too broad to suit your purposes.

So what is the Politically correct term for Someone who decides to convert away from Islam? What is the terminology used to define the separation of His Body From His Head?

Do you deny that the penalty of choosing another Faith is Death in Sharia Law? I would love to be wrong here? No loop holes now. What is the life expectancy of a convert away from Islam, in the Islamic World?

 

[JW Frogen]

. You lack understanding of even the most basic Qur'anic terms.

If you are correct the problem is too many violent Muslims lack basic understanding of Qur'anic terms as well.

Like most religion it is all over the heavans and Earth and can be pretty much cherry picked to justify anything.

 

[Kalam]

So what is the Politically correct term for Someone who decides to convert away from Islam?

"Apostate."

What is the terminology used to define the separation of His Body From His Head?

"Decapitation."

Do you deny that the penalty of choosing another Faith is Death in Sharia Law? I would love to be wrong here? No loop holes now.

No punishment for apostasy is given in the Qur'an. Therefore, killing apostates is un-Islamic.

 

[Kalam]

Innocent people are Muslims and dhimmis, unbelievers are not innocent according to Islam

It's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. They're protected from hostility unless they initiate it.

O you who believe, stand up as witnesses for God in all fairness, and do not let the hatred of a people deviate you from justice. Be just: This is closest to piety; and beware of God. Surely God is aware of all you do. - 5:8​

The Bible, on the other hand, demands that unbelievers be slain by their closest relatives and that entire towns be slaughtered and destroyed if a non-Christian/Jewish preacher spreads his message there.

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. - Deut. 13:6-16 (NIV)​

 

[Kalam]

As to the second verse MM Ali supposes that Mohammad had to be talking about prior scripture since

Again, you're apparently too dense to understand the Maulana's clear argument. You're either dwelling on this because you're:

a. Not keen enough to realize that isn't the argument being made, or
b. Too dishonest to actually address the argument.

 

[Kalam]

You are not required to agree,
Im just illustrating it is possible to have a rational by which to disagree.

No, you're attempting to propagate the narrow-minded interpretation of Islam you favor, which requires belief in false doctrines such as abrogation to justify its highly selective and particularly violent interpretation of the Qur'an.

You do not a quantum of uncertainty about abrogation.

I'm not sure how any person who believes that the Qur'an was imperfect and required abrogation can consider himself or herself a Muslim.

Others do and they can do so with out being morons, liars or idiots.

Rest assured, you being a moron, a liar, and an idiot has to do with far more than your belief in abrogation.

If you feel you can convince them to stop teaching abrogation at Oxford please apply for a position there.
I dont think they will take you on.

If you consider Oxford an authority on Islam, I'm curious as to why you don't use their translation of the Qur'an.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

You are not required to agree,
Im just illustrating it is possible to have a rational by which to disagree.

No, you're attempting to propagate the narrow-minded interpretation of Islam you favor, which requires belief in false doctrines such as abrogation to justify its highly selective and particularly violent interpretation of the Qur'an.

The post stands, you asked for reasoning I gave you reasons,
Abrogation is an established fact.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1564805-post160.html

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Kalam

Yak yak yak

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allāh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allāh (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zālimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.) (Al-Baqarah 2:193)

O you who believe! Spend of that with which We have provided for you, before a Day comes when there will be no bargaining, nor friendship, nor intercession. And it is the disbelievers who are the Zālimûn (wrong-doers, etc.). (Al-Baqarah 2:254)

Quraan Transliteration

 

[Kalam]

The Fitnuts approach: ignore logic, re-post shitty arguments ad nauseum. Congratulations, you're an idiot.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

As to the second verse MM Ali supposes that Mohammad had to be talking about prior scripture since

Again, you're apparently too dense to understand the Maulana's clear argument. You're either dwelling on this because you're:

a. Not keen enough to realize that isn't the argument being made, or
b. Too dishonest to actually address the argument.

I address his arguments, They are flawed.You are predisposed to ignore those flaws because your faith is balanced on them .
Im sympathetic, never the less abrogation is an established fact. Your cult has lost the argument it is fading into history. I'm sorry.
Your solution of trying to denigrate with name calling is an act of puerile instinct .

 

[Sunni Man]

As to the second verse MM Ali supposes that Mohammad had to be talking about prior scripture since

Again, you're apparently too dense to understand the Maulana's clear argument. You're either dwelling on this because you're:

a. Not keen enough to realize that isn't the argument being made, or
b. Too dishonest to actually address the argument.

I address his arguments, They are flawed.You are predisposed to ignore those flaws because your faith is balanced on them .
Im sympathetic, never the less abrogation is an established fact. Your cult has lost the argument it is fading into history. I'm sorry.
Your solution of trying to denigrate with name calling is an act of puerile instinct .

I see Mr Fitnah is trying out new words he found in the dictionary.

Now if he could just figure out how to use them coherently in a sentence!!

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I would to clarify that I dont believe all muslims or neccesarily most are bad people or terrorists.

Im talking about radical islam

Because I unlike many here, know its REAL history of blood lust, conquest, conversion, and plans for world domination since its inception and mohammeds death.

I will not be lied to, or fooled by pro muslim propaganda.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

that is my understanding too.

Christian history has been far more treacherous to jews then islamic history.

actsnoblemartin, you should look up the historical interaction between Jews and Muslims throughout history.

Most of the time, the Jews would seek out Muslim lands to live.

They knew they would be protected under Muslim rulers, from the Christians who seemed to always rise up and slaughter the Jews.

Spain in the 1400's is a great example of the friendship between Jews and Muslims. For around 800 years the Jews lived in peace under Muslim rulers. Many of Judiasms most famous scholars thrived during this period and wrote books still used in Judiasm today. This period ended when the Spanish Christians from the north invaded killing both Jews and Muslims, and started the terror of the inquisition.

The modern conflict involving Israel/Jews and Islam/Muslims, is in no way repesentive of the usually close relationship between Jews and Muslims throughout history.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I am trying to turn my lil rant, a bit late, but better late then never into a discussion

I dont like christian history either to be honest, actually worse to the jews then islam

My thoughts on christian history.

I could sum it up in one word. AWFUL.

persecution of jews especially, im not sure how muslims were treated in christian lands back in the day, but i know jews were treated like shit.

So while I give Islamic History an F

I probably Give christian history a D+ at best.

Infact the christian world abandoned the jews from 1933-1945. For christ sake we didnt even bomb the train tracks to the death camps, as supposedly good europe christians went to courage and didnt care to know what was happening when all these jews were magically disappearing not to mention the american christians didnt give a fuck about us either.

I could go off topic, and say why this isnt only about history but you asked a specific question. So ill give you a specific answer

What are you thoughts on the history of Christianity?

so basically you know nothing and only wanted to rant against islam. the idea that you only find issues with christian behavior during a 12 year period is disturbing.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

both histories are bad, but if we dont acknowledge the truths out there, we are doomed to lose

Fact #1 the vast majority of global terrorism is committed by islamic jihadists, islamo nazi's, jihadists, bad people, or whatever you wanna call them, but sadly its mostly muslims, which is NOT to say most muslims are terrorists, or agree with jihad

crusades, scientific persecution, missionaries....

sorry how is Christianity an ounce better?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

im sorry, can you show me where i claimed to be an expert

Because I unlike many here, know its REAL history of blood lust, conquest, conversion, and plans for world domination since its inception and mohammeds death.

I will not be lied to, or fooled by pro muslim propaganda.

Yeah, dude, reading about Islam on the internet totally makes you an expert on the subject.

Wikipedia should offer print-out PhD degrees for convenience's sake.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

sadly radical islam has been making huge gains all over the world since the 70's, and the west has been to afraid to deal with it out of fear of being called racist.

I dont like some of the verses in the koran, because they lend themselves to radicalization and should be taken out of the koran immediately

Nope..........IsLAME is a fucked theology at best, a cult of death at worst.

They try to tell you that it's a peaceful religion, but nothing could be farther from the truth, especially after the late 70's when radical IsLAME took over.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

you have a point, but the problem with your argument is that americans have taken down the kkk, making it almost irrelevent, where as radical islam has been coddled in islamic countries, and not taken on by enough good muslims, that is festers like an open sore

no no.

don't confuse radical religious movements as indicative of the entire religion.

The KKK is a radical Christian group in the USA. There have been plenty of them throughout history. Just because you hear about the nutjobs the most doesn't mean it represents the entirety of the religion.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Im not interested in religious text, but you would admit that some of the koran has verses that are bad right?

Im not gonna throw out the baby with the bathwater, but we can agree that some of the verses need to be taken out right?

Because I unlike many here, know its REAL history of blood lust, conquest, conversion, and plans for world domination since its inception and mohammeds death.

I will not be lied to, or fooled by pro muslim propaganda.

What some people do and what the religion is about aren't the same thing. Try reading the Koran and getting back to us on what Islam is about.