Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
They're not butt sniffing, they're carpet kissing, as in: Mohammed was a carpet kisser.
Many muslims like to say "Islam forbids the killing of innocent people", I'm asking for some one to proves unequivocally using Islamic scripture that none muslims are innocent, Thanks for reading my post.Mr. Fitnah
The reason no one is responding to your posts.
Is because it is not clear as to what you are saying or what exactly your point is?
What you are failing to realize is that Muslims believe that anyone who doesn't put his nose in the dirt and his ass in the air 5 times a day is guilty of being an infidel therefore worthy of being killed.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-o4l7Mgj5s&feature=related]YouTube - ‪Islam - Mandates Violence Against Unbeliever‬‎[/ame]Many muslims like to say "Islam forbids the killing of innocent people", I'm asking for some one to prove unequivocally using Islamic scripture that none muslims are innocent
One would assume that the Quran andYou want me to quote Qur'anic scripture saying that non-Muslims are innocent merely by virtue of their being non-Islamic?
Does that not seem like an illogical thing for the Qur'an to say, Mr. al-Kafir?
other Islamic scripture would be the source of Islamic thought.
Since many muslims like to say Islam forbids the killing of innocent people ,
Islam denounces terrorism.com
It is reasonable to try to determine who exactly they are speaking of These innocent people.
Presumably it refers to killing any person who hasn't committed murder or some similarly heinous crime, as mentioned by
Moses (AS) in 18:74. The definition of innocent could be extended further to encompass all people who have not initiated
hostilities. This is based on the message of non-aggression, holding true to pacts, and purely defensive retaliation
described in 2:190, 2:194, 9:1, 9:4, 9:7, 26:227, 42:39, 42:41, and elsewhere. Islam does not permit aggression or the
initiation of hostilities in general.
Come on, schmendrick. We know you like him in the same way white folks liked docile, subservient Uncle Tom.
Tell me what is wrong with what Zuhdi said.
He is a perfect example of what America is all about.
Token minorities abandoning their principles so that they can kowtow to the establishment? I don't know if that's what America is all about, but there's been a fair amount of that type of grovelling among American "Muslims" recently.
What's wrong with what he says? I'll have a hard time deciding where to start. There's his support for Israeli aggression, his condemnation of Muslims that fight in defense of their oppressed brothers and sisters, his identification with a long-defunct group of thuggish heretics called the Mu'tazilah, his constant insistence that Muslims should abandon Shari'ah and adopt Western values and systems of government...
Sometimes I wonder why these people bother calling themselves Muslims.
The vast majority of muslims in the world see your ideas as heretical and will bring you to heel when the time comes.
My non-Mu'tazili friends (essentially all of my Muslim friends) don't have a problem with my beliefs. They are capable of disagreeing with me respectfully, as my non-Muslim friends are.
Not all muslims agree with Suyuti.Abrogation is not as complicated as you would like to think Ibn Hazm the author of an-Nasikh wal-Mansukh,states that there are 114 verses that speak of tolerance in early Islam, but all were abrogated by one verse, "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them" (Q. 9:5)
Ibn Hazm jurist and theologian.
Addressed by as-Suyuti, who demonstrated that no more than 21 ayat are nasikh and mansukh; and subsequently by Shah Waliullah, who posited that as-Suyuti's 21 could be reduced to 5.
Nor are they required to.
"5" a number you insisted was "0"
Your used to say that you could not understand how any true muslim could believe in the concept of internal abrogation.
Now you argue against that which you insisted was true.
Centuries of scholarship ?
Perhaps you should have the intellectual honesty to keep your opinion to yourself until you know what it is you are talking about.
Tafsir Ayet of the sword
(and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush), do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam,
M. Khan the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari in his opening remarks makes it clear the 2:256 is abrogated by 9:5.
"Allah revealed in Sura Bara'at (Repentance, IX) the order to discard (all) obligations (covenants, etc), and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the Pagans as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizia (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in 9:29). So the Muslims were not permitted to abandon "the fighting" against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are strong and have the ability to fight against them. So at first "the fighting" was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory."
More conformation 2:256 was abrogated at the time of Mohammads life
Something centuries of scholarship can do nothing about.
Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."
'Umdat as-Salik wa 'Uddat an-Nasik
Of course you'd pull quotes from a book on Shafi'i jurisprudence and act as if all Muslims were bound by them, you dishonest moron.
Ok, I actually read some of Marc's posts for a change. Notice how the Jew ignores his religion's commandment to use the mouth for circumcisions.
The full quote from 'Umdat as-Salik ("Reliance of the Traveler", a legal manual used by the Shafi'i school):
"Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs)..."
And he goes on to quote a hadith saying as much.
Who said I believe in everything written in RotT? Somebody posted an inaccurate quote and I corrected them. In your dimunitive brain, I'm sure that is considered tantamount to belief in something.
Running out of straws to grasp at?
Who said I believe in everything written in RotT? Somebody posted an inaccurate quote and I corrected them. In your dimunitive brain, I'm sure that is considered tantamount to belief in something.
Running out of straws to grasp at?
Islam forbids kalam to say anything intelligent.
Many muslims like to say "Islam forbids the killing of innocent people"
Please prove none muslims are innocent according to Islamic scripture.
Laughing all day long.Many muslims like to say "Islam forbids the killing of innocent people"
Please prove none muslims are innocent according to Islamic scripture.
Are you saying the "religion of peace" is being deceptive by telling non-believers they will not kill innocents; while the whole time the muslims are laughing into their sleeves because they believe "non-believers" are sinners (therefore, not innocent)? Surely, the faithful would have courage to speak truthfully and not perpetuate such deception.
If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it.
“’When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if the goal is permissible, and it is obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.
Umdat as-Salik Pg. 745
