We find the defendant Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Not Guilty

[Mr.Fitnah]

We've seen incontrovertible proof that the translation you prefer contains lies, yet you continue to use it. I wonder why that is?

You have no such proof.
The translation I use does not impart bias from the translator by trying to translate words that have no direct meaning in english.

It makes more sense and is clear when it is presented this

No, I'm afraid false takfiri additions and bid'ah only obfuscate the meaning.

Not really, all translations are an indictment of Islam.I prefer the one that requires more learning and deeper understanding .
If there were some problem with the translation by Muhammad Khan and distributed by “King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur’an—The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques they have has ample opportunity to fix it.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Is there an Arabic word for these oppressors ?

The Noble Quran's Search Results:

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.

The Noble Quran's Search Results:

Apparently the same arabic word is used to describe oppresors in 2:193 and 2:254

Quraan Transliteration

That means disbelief is oppresion

You've cut and pasted this post how many times now? Nine or ten? Think for yourself and come up with original arguments.

Read two passages ahead and you'll understand why your interpretation is false, retard.

There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing. - 2:256​

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

("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.'


Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir


(then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them), means, on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area, for Allah said,


(And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram, unless they fight you there. But if they attack you, then fight them. )[2:191] Allah said here,


(and capture them), executing some and keeping some as prisoners,


(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,


(But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give the Zakah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.) Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations. Allah mentioned the most important aspects of Islam here, including what is less important. Surely, the highest elements of Islam after the Two Testimonials, are the prayer, which is the right of Allah, the Exalted and Ever High, then the Zakah, which benefits the poor and needy. These are the most honorable acts that creatures perform, and this is why Allah often mentions the prayer and Zakah together. In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.) This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.'

 

[Kalam]

You have no such proof.

Don't lie.

The passage itself can be found in two places. It is on page 54 of my copy of the Noble Qur’an
translation by Muhammad Khan and distributed by “King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur’an—The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.

The Muhsin Khan "translation" isn't really a translation, it's a Wahhabi tafsir that is mass produced and distributed free-of-charge by Saudi Arabia for propaganda purposes. If you paid anything for it, you were ripped off. Let's use Al-Fatiha as an example; we'll compare Muhsin Khan's translation with those of three good translators.

Arthur John Arberry:
Guide us in the straight path, the path of those whom Thou hast blessed, not of those against whom Thou art wrathful, nor of those who are astray. - 1:6-7

Maulana Muhammad Ali:
Guide us on the right path, the path of those upon whom Thou has bestowed favours, Not those upon whom wrath is brought down, nor those who go astray. - 1:6-7

Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall:
Show us the straight path, the path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray. - 1:6-7

-----

Muhammad Muhsin Khan:
Guide us to the Straight Way; The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians). - 1:6-7
​

That should give you an idea of the extent to which the Wahhabi translator warps the divine message for the purpose cof propagating his erroneous ideology. The author did not even have the decency to include his opinions as footnotes. Instead, he chose to insert them into the body of the Qur'an itself -- a manifest sin -- in a misleading attempt to make it seem as if they're actually part of the Recitation.

It is a footnote to Qur’an 2.190 and is designed to explain Jihad according to Allah as this is the first time the word is used.

Because it's evident that you have no real knowledge of the holy Qur'an, I'll assume that this statement was made out of ignorance and that it wasn't your intention to be dishonest. As you'll see, the word "jihad" does not appear in 2:190. In fact, it appears in few or none of the verses that deal explicitly with physical conflict against an enemy. For this, the verb qatala and its variations are used - this applies to the wars of Muslims as well as those of non-Muslims.

2:190 -

وَقَٰتِلُوا۟ فِى سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلَّذِينَ يُقَٰتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوٓا۟ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ ٱلْمُعْتَدِينَ

Waqatiloo fee sabeeli Allahi allatheena yuqatiloonakum wala taAAtadoo inna Allaha la yuhibbu almuAAtadeena

And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress not: God loves not the aggressors.
​

I am aware that Muhsin Khan claims that 2:190 was "the first [ayah] that was revealed in connection with Jihad," which is an outright lie, because it neither mentions "jihad" nor was it the first passage to deal with the concept. Chronologically, the first passages in which forms of the j-h-d trilateral were used are passages that deal with making and keeping oaths.

The use of jihad in the sense of "striving" occurred first in 31:15, which instructs believers to disobey their parents if their parents "strive" to make them disbelieve (they are instructed to treat them kindly nonetheless.) The first mention of believers' jihad occurs in 16:110 -

Then, surely thy Lord -- unto those who have emigrated after persecution, then struggled and were patient -- surely thy Lord thereafter is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.​

And it can be found on page 580 of the Islamic University of Medina’s translation of Sahih al-Bukhari’s Hadith. There it opens Bukhari’s Book of Jihad.

Care to tell us who the translator was? It was Muhsin Khan, was it not?

You'll find that Sahih Bukhari contains no such definition of jihad; it was Muhsin Khan's addition.

In both cases, the Islamic scholars are condensing Allah’s and Muhammad’s teachings on Jihad to a single paragraph.

In both cases, the same translator attempts to spread the same lies by amending texts to include his own false interpretation of jihad. An entirely accurate definition of jihad has already been provided. Muhsin Khan is a doctor by trade, not a scholar. He should not quit his day job.

You'd do well to familiarize yourself with Lane's Lexicon if you expect to be taken seriously; it's widely believed to be the best reference book of its kind for a reason.

Wa salam.

The translation I use does not impart bias from the translator by trying to translate words that have no direct meaning in english.

Bullshit. The translation you use is not a translation, it's a Wahhabi tafsir that is entirely unreliable because the author's heretical and baseless opinions are interspersed throughout the text.

Not really, all translations are an indictment of Islam.

Yet you've consistently had your ass whipped by accurate translations and refuse to part from your Saudi-distributed bullshit.

I prefer the one that requires more learning and deeper understanding .

Khan's translation requires "more learning"?

What is the extent of your knowledge of written Arabic? What is the extent of your familiarity with the six canonical hadith collections?

If there were some problem with the translation by Muhammad Khan and distributed by “King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur’an—The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques they have has ample opportunity to fix it.

The translation was intended to deceive weak-minded fools such as yourself. Why would they correct lies that they probably published on purpose, Copernicus?

Your posts are based on the legitimacy of abrogation, which you refuse to address, and Wahhabism, which we know to be a heretical sect that encourages lying to Muslims, bid'ah, idolatry, and false interpretations of Islam's foundational texts. Beyond that, you simply make things up on your own, claiming that verses you don't like have been "abrogated" without referring to any credible authority. Of course you aren't going to be satisfied by scriptural arguments if you pick and choose which passages you believe to be legitimate, you dumb motherfucker.

 

[Kalam]

Back to copying and pasting from your exegesis again, I see. God, your posts are so laughably predictable.

However, it is not relevant to the subject under discussion,

Then I suppose we'll move on.

(then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them), means, on the earth in general,

Based on the authority of which Qur'anic passage?

This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam,

I see no reason to believe in this un-Islamic injunction rather than the Holy Qur'an.

These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.

Incorrect.

In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.)

The commandment to fight referred to here is contained in the Qur'an:

"And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you..."​

It is not open-ended.

This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword

"It is clear from this that the meaning of this verse is to kill the pagans who are waging war against you."
- Ibn al-Arabi (d. 1148)

"The emphasis is on the first clause: it is only when the four months of grace are past, and the other party show no sign of desisting from their treacherous design by right conduct, that the state of war supervenes - between Faith and Unfaith."
- 'Abdullah Yusuf 'Ali

"But even here the norms are clear: fighting is only in self defence or for the establishment of justice; and always fighting is the last option. And no one is allowed to transgress the limits set by God."
- Prof. Shahul Hameed

etc.

 

[Rozman]

Everyone knows how crazy liberal NY is,wouldn't it be something if this backfires in Barry's face?. Then
when the president gets back to the residence,Michelle will be wearing that little special something that gets Barry in the mood. Barry looks into Michele's eyes and says well they were aquitted today babe and Michele looks back and says well it's for the good of the country getting on the good side of world opinion. We never should have fought back against these guys to begin with. We deserved what happened on 9-11.Again for the third time in my adult life I'm proud of this country.Barry looks back at his wife and says honey tonight can I call you Beyonce? Michelle says can I call you 50 cent?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So as I read the drooling ramblings of the RELIGIOUS conservatives , it's OK to squeeze a guys nuts and thereafter use his confession against him in a Criminal Court.


Hallelujah.

.

KSM is a terrorist. Got that, Sparky? He's not a Criminal.

How do you know he's a terrorist?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x80h_JiOTZs[/ame]

 

[Rozman]

We the liberal left jury of NY do hereby find the defendants not guilty and beg their forgiveness for not having the decency to have the buildings totally full on 9-11. We apologize and beg your forgiveness.
This administration will never again let our anti terror agencies treat you and yours in such an
uncivilized manner.We the left will make sure that we will never again stand in your way as you decide
to wipe us off the face of the map. We just want to please our European allies in this endeavor and make
MSNBC proud.

 

[Ravi]

KSM is a terrorist. Got that, Sparky? He's not a Criminal.

How do you know he's a terrorist?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x80h_JiOTZs[/ame]

So you don't, do you?

 

[Yurt]

So as I read the drooling ramblings of the RELIGIOUS conservatives , it's OK to squeeze a guys nuts and thereafter use his confession against him in a Criminal Court.


Hallelujah.

.

KSM is a terrorist. Got that, Sparky? He's not a Criminal.

How do you know he's a terrorist?

so you're calling obama and holder liars? interesting

 

[Yurt]

Exactly,

Bush was a moron.....Bush never planned anything...He never considered that he would need actual evidence to hold people in jail for the rest of their lives.
He never planned that he would need to prove that these men were really terrorists.
Military tribunals still need evidence and Bush fucked it up royally

you idiot....why would have had planned for a civilian criminal trial when NO ONE, not even obama, was talking about doing so....obama fucked up by not realizing the constitutional implications of this civilian criminal circus, not bush, bush is not responsible for obama's stupidity, only a hack would think so

military trials are vastly different than civilian criminal trials, your ignorance is astounding....

LOL...you are delusional

Do you really think military tribunals don't require evidence? You don't think the accused has a right to a fair trial...even if it is military?

God damnit! Do right wingnuts have any concept of the principles this country was founded on? They think you can just accuse someone of terrorism and take them out and hang them?

i never said that you lying tool....if you think military and civilian courts are the same, you are the world's biggest moron

for starters, the rules of evidence are different....and miranda is a different issue....

please educate yourself

 

[rightwinger]

We the liberal left jury of NY do hereby find the defendants not guilty and beg their forgiveness for not having the decency to have the buildings totally full on 9-11. We apologize and beg your forgiveness.
This administration will never again let our anti terror agencies treat you and yours in such an
uncivilized manner.We the left will make sure that we will never again stand in your way as you decide
to wipe us off the face of the map. We just want to please our European allies in this endeavor and make
MSNBC proud.

It was those liberal left wingers who died that day. It was liberal left wing firemen and policemen who charged into those buildings to try to save lives. It was those liberal left wing New Yorkers who rallied around to help eachother.

Who the hell are you to question whether they deserve to try those son of a bitches who did it?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

You have no such proof.

Don't lie.

The Muhsin Khan "translation" isn't really a translation, it's a Wahhabi tafsir that is mass produced and distributed free-of-charge by Saudi Arabia for propaganda purposes. If you paid anything for it, you were ripped off. Let's use Al-Fatiha as an example; we'll compare Muhsin Khan's translation with those of three good translators.

Arthur John Arberry:
Guide us in the straight path, the path of those whom Thou hast blessed, not of those against whom Thou art wrathful, nor of those who are astray. - 1:6-7

Maulana Muhammad Ali:
Guide us on the right path, the path of those upon whom Thou has bestowed favours, Not those upon whom wrath is brought down, nor those who go astray. - 1:6-7

Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall:
Show us the straight path, the path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray. - 1:6-7

-----

Muhammad Muhsin Khan:
Guide us to the Straight Way; The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians). - 1:6-7
​

That should give you an idea of the extent to which the Wahhabi translator warps the divine message for the purpose cof propagating his erroneous ideology. The author did not even have the decency to include his opinions as footnotes. Instead, he chose to insert them into the body of the Qur'an itself -- a manifest sin -- in a misleading attempt to make it seem as if they're actually part of the Recitation.


Because it's evident that you have no real knowledge of the holy Qur'an, I'll assume that this statement was made out of ignorance and that it wasn't your intention to be dishonest. As you'll see, the word "jihad" does not appear in 2:190. In fact, it appears in few or none of the verses that deal explicitly with physical conflict against an enemy. For this, the verb qatala and its variations are used - this applies to the wars of Muslims as well as those of non-Muslims.

2:190 -

وَقَٰتِلُوا۟ فِى سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلَّذِينَ يُقَٰتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوٓا۟ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ ٱلْمُعْتَدِينَ

Waqatiloo fee sabeeli Allahi allatheena yuqatiloonakum wala taAAtadoo inna Allaha la yuhibbu almuAAtadeena

And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress not: God loves not the aggressors.
​

I am aware that Muhsin Khan claims that 2:190 was "the first [ayah] that was revealed in connection with Jihad," which is an outright lie, because it neither mentions "jihad" nor was it the first passage to deal with the concept. Chronologically, the first passages in which forms of the j-h-d trilateral were used are passages that deal with making and keeping oaths.

The use of jihad in the sense of "striving" occurred first in 31:15, which instructs believers to disobey their parents if their parents "strive" to make them disbelieve (they are instructed to treat them kindly nonetheless.) The first mention of believers' jihad occurs in 16:110 -

Then, surely thy Lord -- unto those who have emigrated after persecution, then struggled and were patient -- surely thy Lord thereafter is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.​

Care to tell us who the translator was? It was Muhsin Khan, was it not?

You'll find that Sahih Bukhari contains no such definition of jihad; it was Muhsin Khan's addition.


In both cases, the same translator attempts to spread the same lies by amending texts to include his own false interpretation of jihad. An entirely accurate definition of jihad has already been provided. Muhsin Khan is a doctor by trade, not a scholar. He should not quit his day job.

You'd do well to familiarize yourself with Lane's Lexicon if you expect to be taken seriously; it's widely believed to be the best reference book of its kind for a reason.

Wa salam.

What you call a lie , merely highlights the fact that the J H D does in fact may mean "strive", In 31:15 the meaning would be convince or convert ,J H D
has a larger meaning with in Islam Which includes fighting as well as du’aa.
At the time the ayat 9:5 was uttered "fighting" was the was the "jihad"
This kind of thing

Jihad (Kitab Al-Jihad)
Dawud :: Book 14 : Hadith 2526
Narrated Anas ibn Malik:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist). The tyranny of any tyrant and the justice of any just (ruler) will not invalidate it. One must have faith in Divine decree.

Jihad (Kitab Al-Jihad)
Dawud :: Book 14 : Hadith 2497
Narrated AbuUmamah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: He who does not join the warlike expedition (jihad), or equip, or looks well after a warrior's family when he is away, will be smitten by Allah with a sudden calamity. Yazid ibn Abdu Rabbihi said in his tradition: 'before the Day of Resurrection".

It is not a lie, it is just in context to reflect the zeitgeist of the time.
It accuratly reflects fundamental Islam
it is not some wahabbie heretical clap trap.
Its just Islam.


1 – Jihad with one's hand (i.e., physical jihad, fighting) if one is able. If that is not possible then it should be with one's tongue (i.e., by speaking out). If that is not possible then it should be with one's heart (i.e., by hating the evil and feeling that it is wrong).

These are the thirteen types of jihad, and “Whoever dies without having fought or having resolved to fight has died following one of the branches of hypocrisy.” (Narrated by Muslim, 1910).

Zaad al-Ma’aad, 3/9-11)

Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

“Jihad is of various kinds, with one’s self, one's wealth, by making du’aa’, by teaching and guiding, by helping to do good in any way. The greatest form of jihad is jihad with one’s self (i.e., going oneself and fighting), followed by jihad with one's wealth, jihad by speaking out and guiding others. Da’wah is also part of jihad. But going out oneself to fight in jihad is the highest form.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Back to copying and pasting from your exegesis again, I see. God, your posts are so laughably predictable.

However, it is not relevant to the subject under discussion,

Then I suppose we'll move on.

(then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them), means, on the earth in general,

Based on the authority of which Qur'anic passage?


I see no reason to believe in this un-Islamic injunction rather than the Holy Qur'an.


Incorrect.

In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.)

The commandment to fight referred to here is contained in the Qur'an:

"And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you..."​

It is not open-ended.

No it is not

8:39

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world[]]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do
2:193.
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc193

This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword

"It is clear from this that the meaning of this verse is to kill the pagans who are waging war against you."
- Ibn al-Arabi (d. 1148)

"The emphasis is on the first clause: it is only when the four months of grace are past, and the other party show no sign of desisting from their treacherous design by right conduct, that the state of war supervenes - between Faith and Unfaith."
- 'Abdullah Yusuf 'Ali

"But even here the norms are clear: fighting is only in self defence or for the establishment of justice; and always fighting is the last option. And no one is allowed to transgress the limits set by God."
- Prof. Shahul Hameed

etc.

Wiki and you apologetics site?
Nah.

Pickthall Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Yusuf Ali But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Hilali-Khan Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Shakir So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Sher Ali And when the forbidden months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them and take them captive, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. Surely, ALLAH is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

Khalifa Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

Arberry Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.

Palmer But when the sacred months are passed away, kill the idolaters wherever ye may find them; and take them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every place of observation; but if they repent, and are steadfast in prayer, and give alms, then let them go their way; verily, God is forgiving and merciful.

Rodwell And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is Gracious, Merciful.

Sale And when the months [wherein ye are] not allowed [to attack them] shall be past, kill the idolaters wheresoever ye shall find them, and take them [prisoners], and besiege them, and lay wait for them in every convenient place. But if they shall repent, and observe the appointed times of prayer, and pay the legal alms, dismiss them freely; for God [is] gracious [and] merciful.


Who pays zakat?
Who preforms Salat?

See it ain't rocket science.
Fight until only muslims remain.
compulsion doesn't enter into it.
Its genocidal.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How do you know he's a terrorist?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x80h_JiOTZs[/ame]

So you don't, do you?

The correct answer per the video is, "Cause you're an asshole, you're an asshole. That's right!

 

[Ravi]

Cool. So if the government tells us that you are a terrorist we will happily stand by and watch you be executed.

What other of your civil rights are you willing to give up to keep you safe? How about your guns?

 

[Rozman]

We the liberal left jury of NY do hereby find the defendants not guilty and beg their forgiveness for not having the decency to have the buildings totally full on 9-11. We apologize and beg your forgiveness.
This administration will never again let our anti terror agencies treat you and yours in such an
uncivilized manner.We the left will make sure that we will never again stand in your way as you decide
to wipe us off the face of the map. We just want to please our European allies in this endeavor and make
MSNBC proud.

It was those liberal left wingers who died that day. It was liberal left wing firemen and policemen who charged into those buildings to try to save lives. It was those liberal left wing New Yorkers who rallied around to help eachother.

Who the hell are you to question whether they deserve to try those son of a bitches who did it?

We deserve to try these bastards as enemy combatants and not to afford them the rights
of the Americans they slaughtered that day. That's what they deserve.To try them in the shadow of ground zero the site of their greatest accomplishment and to give them the rights of American citizens is a disgrace and dishonors the memory of those that were murdered.

How about that ! ! !

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Libruls are very concerned with people rights, unfortunately instead of the rights of the American people Librul are making up rights for Terrorists

 

[tigerbob]

Libruls are very concerned with people rights, unfortunately instead of the rights of the American people Librul are making up rights for Terrorists

I can't agree with that. I know plenty of Liberals who think KSH os one of the most dangerous men on the planet, and who would love to see him locked up and the key thrown away. Just because they describe themselves as Liberals (actually they describe themselves as Democrats, but to most the term is interchangeable) doesn't mean they harbor any sympathy or even compassion for him.

They do, however, support Obama, and therefore find themselves in the position of having to defend this decision, whether they genuinely agree with it or not. Some do agree with it, others don't. It's difficult when the political leader one supports makes a decision that is at odds with one's own views.

These are just my observations BTW, specifically regarding people I know. Just suggesting it's not as cut and dried as your post seems to make it.