Burning prisoners to death, a punishment sanctioned in Islam

[Roudy]

Doesn't look like you've learned from history. Indofred is anti American Muslim who thinks Islamic terrorists are freedom fighters, and you're just a useful idiot, who can't handle the truth that ISIS' behavior is based entirely on the teachings of the Koran. They call themselves ISLAMIC STATE for a reason.

That's what your myopia tells you?

Diga me hombre -- do you see the difference between this:

Islam is the cancer of modern civilization.

and this:

​

... and this?

​

Me neither.
How many times do we have to learn where this road goes?
How many? Just give me a number.

How does this relate? You guys are trying to compare the worldwide scourge of Islamic terrorism to every single thing whites, Europeans, or Christians have done in the past.

Christians aren't murdering non Christians in the name of Jesus.

Scott Roeder did. Eric Rudolph did. John Salvi did. Michael Griffin did. The Reverend Paul Jennings Hill did. Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons and Kaye Wiggins called their Christmas Day bombing "a gift to Jesus on his birthday". All Christians. And lots more.

Now by your logic this has to mean that "Christianity sanctions muder". And bombing too for that matter. It MUST mean that.

Your own logic, dood.

You can keep running this illogic play over and over expecting different results; you won't get 'em.

If there were groups like that today killing and threatening all non Christians to follow their ideology all over the world, then yes, I'd take another look at the NT. But that's not the case is it. Christians are promoting coexistence and tolerance, while the opposite seems to be happening in the Muslim world. Even Muslims that immigrate to Western nations are now threatening and killing Christians in their own countries, in the name of Islam.

But of course all of this has nothing to do with Islam. Yep.

Ah, so a tiny irrepresentative sample of "our" people doesn't count, while a tiny irrepresentative sample of "theirs" does. Having it both ways: Priceless.

Still drowning in your own biased sample fallacy swill.

--- which kinda makes the outrage in the rest of the Muslim world over an execution method they consider abhorrent -- as I linked already two or three times --- difficult to explain, doesn't it?

This whole thread is like a chapter from 1984 -- emphasis on Doublethink.
And of course, Two Minutes Hate.

The outrage is because they did it to another Muslim. Where was all the outrage when they were beheading Christian human aid workers and posting the video on you tube? not abhorrent enough?

 

[Anonymous1977]

Innocents get killed in and mistreated in every war. Bashir Assad the genocial maniac and his army have killed over 250,000 Syrians, many of them innocent. They've dropped bombs, used chemical weapons, and raped and tortured fellow Syrians. Did they do it in the name of Islam, no. Neither did Sadam attack Kuwait in the name of Islam. Yet they were all Muslims and therefore should be blamed according to you.

So your claim belongs in the context of a general discussion of war and its effects, not the fact that Muslim Islamist lunatics are behaving like savage subhuman animals in the name of Islam.

What's the problem with Islam? Isn't it obvious? I would point you to the Egyptian leader General Sissi's recent speech about reforming Islam and Islamic thinking.

You B*TCH (LOLOL,) you're just making stuff up; why does America claim that those who are being charged have the right to confront their accuser, but love to accuse others while they (the accused) are absent?

I know about you PUNKS from the way you treat Louis Farrakhan in the media...you tell PARTS of the story and not the whole story, and, you FLAT OUT LIE.

Just go help the Ukrainians, you B*TCHES LOLOLOLOL.

 

[Pogo]

That's what your myopia tells you?

Diga me hombre -- do you see the difference between this:

and this:

​

... and this?

​

Me neither.
How many times do we have to learn where this road goes?
How many? Just give me a number.

How does this relate? You guys are trying to compare the worldwide scourge of Islamic terrorism to every single thing whites, Europeans, or Christians have done in the past.

Christians aren't murdering non Christians in the name of Jesus.

Scott Roeder did. Eric Rudolph did. John Salvi did. Michael Griffin did. The Reverend Paul Jennings Hill did. Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons and Kaye Wiggins called their Christmas Day bombing "a gift to Jesus on his birthday". All Christians. And lots more.

Now by your logic this has to mean that "Christianity sanctions muder". And bombing too for that matter. It MUST mean that.

Your own logic, dood.

You can keep running this illogic play over and over expecting different results; you won't get 'em.

If there were groups like that today killing and threatening all non Christians to follow their ideology all over the world, then yes, I'd take another look at the NT. But that's not the case is it. Christians are promoting coexistence and tolerance, while the opposite seems to be happening in the Muslim world. Even Muslims that immigrate to Western nations are now threatening and killing Christians in their own countries, in the name of Islam.

But of course all of this has nothing to do with Islam. Yep.

Ah, so a tiny irrepresentative sample of "our" people doesn't count, while a tiny irrepresentative sample of "theirs" does. Having it both ways: Priceless.

Still drowning in your own biased sample fallacy swill.

--- which kinda makes the outrage in the rest of the Muslim world over an execution method they consider abhorrent -- as I linked already two or three times --- difficult to explain, doesn't it?

This whole thread is like a chapter from 1984 -- emphasis on Doublethink.
And of course, Two Minutes Hate.

The outrage is because they did it to another Muslim. Where was all the outrage when they were beheading Christian human aid workers and posting the video on you tube? not abhorrent enough?

I see now you're trying to escape your own premise.

The thread is about burning, dood. IT'S THE FIRST WORD IN YOUR TITLE.

Fucking hypocrite.

And no, it's not because "they did it to another Muslim". Not satisfied with biased sample, sweeping generalization, composition and ad populum, now you're calling Red Herring in from the bullpen.

 

[Anonymous1977]

And here is the verse Regarding the apostates:

As Abu Bakr, Muhammad's closest companion, explained in a letter at the time, his prophet "struck whoever turned his back to Him until he came to Islam, willingly or grudgingly." Thus did Abu Bakr promise to "burn them with fire, slaughter them by any means, and take women and children captive" any who left Islam. (al-Tabari v10 p.55-57)

And burn he did. ISIS Is just following what Islam teaches them to.

That's not a verse from the Qur'an...that sounds like a fake hadith and all Muslims don't believe in the same hadiths, you backwards *ss moron.

Go learn what you are talking about before you begin talking...you don't even know about Islam (or you are purposing lying about Islam,) yet you want to attack Islam.

You are probably an inmate of hellfire anyway (LOLOL) (you are probably burning in hell in this life anyway LOL.)

 

[Roudy]

Innocents get killed in and mistreated in every war. Bashir Assad the genocial maniac and his army have killed over 250,000 Syrians, many of them innocent. They've dropped bombs, used chemical weapons, and raped and tortured fellow Syrians. Did they do it in the name of Islam, no. Neither did Sadam attack Kuwait in the name of Islam. Yet they were all Muslims and therefore should be blamed according to you.

So your claim belongs in the context of a general discussion of war and its effects, not the fact that Muslim Islamist lunatics are behaving like savage subhuman animals in the name of Islam.

What's the problem with Islam? Isn't it obvious? I would point you to the Egyptian leader General Sissi's recent speech about reforming Islam and Islamic thinking.

You B*TCH (LOLOL,) you're just making stuff up; why does America claim that those who are being charged have the right to confront their accuser, but love to accuse others while they (the accused) are absent?

I know about you PUNKS from the way you treat Louis Farrakhan in the media...you tell PARTS of the story and not the whole story, and, you FLAT OUT LIE.

Just go help the Ukrainians, you B*TCHES LOLOLOLOL.

You're not a Muslim yet you whine on behalf of Farakhan?
We saw how Al Queda and the Taliban bitch slapped the Russians out of Afghanistan. They weren't able to do the same with Americans now we're they? In fact Americans are still there. Don't forget that Achmed.

 

[Roudy]

How does this relate? You guys are trying to compare the worldwide scourge of Islamic terrorism to every single thing whites, Europeans, or Christians have done in the past.

Christians aren't murdering non Christians in the name of Jesus.

Scott Roeder did. Eric Rudolph did. John Salvi did. Michael Griffin did. The Reverend Paul Jennings Hill did. Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons and Kaye Wiggins called their Christmas Day bombing "a gift to Jesus on his birthday". All Christians. And lots more.

Now by your logic this has to mean that "Christianity sanctions muder". And bombing too for that matter. It MUST mean that.

Your own logic, dood.

You can keep running this illogic play over and over expecting different results; you won't get 'em.

If there were groups like that today killing and threatening all non Christians to follow their ideology all over the world, then yes, I'd take another look at the NT. But that's not the case is it. Christians are promoting coexistence and tolerance, while the opposite seems to be happening in the Muslim world. Even Muslims that immigrate to Western nations are now threatening and killing Christians in their own countries, in the name of Islam.

But of course all of this has nothing to do with Islam. Yep.

Ah, so a tiny irrepresentative sample of "our" people doesn't count, while a tiny irrepresentative sample of "theirs" does. Having it both ways: Priceless.

Still drowning in your own biased sample fallacy swill.

--- which kinda makes the outrage in the rest of the Muslim world over an execution method they consider abhorrent -- as I linked already two or three times --- difficult to explain, doesn't it?

This whole thread is like a chapter from 1984 -- emphasis on Doublethink.
And of course, Two Minutes Hate.

The outrage is because they did it to another Muslim. Where was all the outrage when they were beheading Christian human aid workers and posting the video on you tube? not abhorrent enough?

I see now you're trying to escape your own premise.

The thread is about burning, dood. IT'S THE FIRST WORD IN YOUR TITLE.

Fucking hypocrite.

And no, it's not because "they did it to another Muslim". Not satisfied with biased sample, sweeping generalization, composition and ad populum, now you're calling Red Herring in from the bullpen.

Yes, they burned the guy because he was a Muslim apostate, and that's exactly what Mohammad's most devout follower did to apostates.

Yes, the entire outrage in Jordan (which is a good thing, don't get me wrong) is because they burned a well known Jordanian pilot who was considered a national hero. Had ISIS burned four Americans and two Japanese in th same manner, there wouldn't be a single Muslim marching in the streets.

That's the inconvenient truth.

 

[Roudy]

And here is the verse Regarding the apostates:

As Abu Bakr, Muhammad's closest companion, explained in a letter at the time, his prophet "struck whoever turned his back to Him until he came to Islam, willingly or grudgingly." Thus did Abu Bakr promise to "burn them with fire, slaughter them by any means, and take women and children captive" any who left Islam. (al-Tabari v10 p.55-57)

And burn he did. ISIS Is just following what Islam teaches them to.

That's not a verse from the Qur'an...that sounds like a fake hadith and all Muslims don't believe in the same hadiths, you backwards *ss moron.

Go learn what you are talking about before you begin talking...you don't even know about Islam (or you are purposing lying about Islam,) yet you want to attack Islam.

You are probably an inmate of hellfire anyway (LOLOL) (you are probably burning in hell in this life anyway LOL.)

Fake Hadith? I think you're a fake Muslim, and ISIS are the real ones. That's why they produced a religious document citing exactly why they did what they did. It's possible they're going to burn more Muslims now that they got all the attention, which they planned on getting. Perhaps this burning added a thousand new recruits to their cause.

Islam, where brain cells go to die.

 

[irosie91]

I can't watch this any more....

Fried.

They're just looking to justify their hate. Your mistake was yhinking they could be reasoned with, or that facts would matter

This is not about hate. This is about the fact that ISIS asked their clerical Islamic religious leaders about the appropriate punishment for the pilot, and then dealt it. In other words the decision to burn the pilot was based on the same religious teaching that calls for Muslims to behead the unbelievers.

The stream you quoted wasn't about either one; it was about the meaning of the phrase insha'Allah.
But yes, your entire thread here is about hate and blanket stereotyping and Composition Fallacy. I've already refuted your bullshit that tries to equate this act with Islam, in which it's anathema. And I've challenged you to cite or in any way document the causal relationship you claimed at the outset.

And you failed.

Deal with that.

I do not see "HATE AND BLANKET STEREOTYPING" in the correct statement that ---'the Jordanian public is incensed
over the fact that isis burned one of their favorite sons to death"-------in fact I would be surprised if they were not incensed.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I can't watch this any more....

Fried.

They're just looking to justify their hate. Your mistake was yhinking they could be reasoned with, or that facts would matter

you are a bigger idiot then pogo

the fact is isil quoted Qisas (equality in punishment)

during the video fire for fire

No wonder you can't figure out insha'Allah -- you can't even figure out then. And that's English.
This space is usually reserved for Special Ed. Still SMH....

what a little bitch you are

spell flaming is a sure sign that you lost

that is because i am correct

and you are not

 

[irosie91]

Shame on you?

Shame on you.

Religious extremism sucks. Those that don't recognize it cry "moral equivalency".

African Christians are burning witches and excorsizing kids with acid. Sweet.

Your answer is completely without logic and once again you are descending to moral equivalence, which means you are attempting to change the subject and gloss over its seriousness

Even if your babble about African witches is true ...what possible comparison is there to the Islamic Caliphate State whose religious aim is to dominate the whole world under Sharia Law and maintain its barbaric practices.

Your babble is completly irrelevant!

People who use this moral equivalence garbage, seem to be condoning the actions of radical Islam by saying - "Well so what , a lot of others are doing it, so why shouldn't they?" -

Everybody who makes these disgusting , ignorant comparisons is only helping the enemy by being a useful donkey for radical Islam.

You can be sure that the enemy is fully aware of these "moral equivalence" comments and is greatly encouraged by them.

They are no doubt amazed by all the sympathy they get from the enemy, in other words the enemy is in the necessary state of submission like so many in this thread.

sky----the word "ENEMY" is relative ----relative to the person being considered. Al Qaeda may be YOUR enemy----but it
is not the enemy of coyote----nor is "isis" Placing a young pilot in a cage and setting him on fire may seem
like an atrocity and a crime to YOU-----but it is not so for coyote RELATIVE to WHO is doing the 'setting on fire'
and to what end. Your problem, sky----is that you do not
enjoy obscene sophistry

Speak for yourself you obscene creature. You only care if atrocities are committed by Muslims. Anyone else, well...it's just an aberration according to you and Skye - or perhaps it just doesn't count if it's not Muslim.

What you're hoping to side-step is that the burning alive of the Jordanian pilot brought into focus the continuing threat of islamo-fascism and its appeals to a resurgence of islamo-conquest and the islamo-caliphate proposed by ISIS.

You need to keep this latest incident of islamo-barbarism in context with the on-going islamo-atrocities taking place across the globe. The reality is that the thugs, misogynists and murderers that many converts and pom pom flailers find excuses for, live and thrive off of the infliction of death, destruction and suffering. They find a holy mandate for murder. They are, after all, following in the footsteps of the islamo-model for all humanity: muhammud (swish). "The way of the prophet" is what drives the swath of death and destruction across Iraq and Syria. ISIS sees Muhammud's (swish) design in destruction, suffering in pursuit of a caliphate.

Actually I'm kind of wondering why you're suddenly incensed by the burning alive of one person by ISIS, then using that to broadbrush an entire religion when Christians have been burning "witches" alive in Africa for years and are still doing it. However, I long ago gave up on any expectations of rationality from you and yours

I will explain------it has been clear to me for a very long time, coyote----that you do not get around much and have never interacted with people from foreign lands. I have. Iraqi
muslims are not primitive people deep in Africa. They are kinda------up to date kinda people. There are some groups of people -----in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan who are---
"out of it"-------and some in places like Yemen. Furthermore if you talk to a "not out of it" muslim from Iraq---or Pakistan---who is into islam-----you will be told that islam is THE MOSTEST UP TO DATE AND BEYOND every aspect
of civilization. Your comparison to a muslim army led by
educated people to some rabble deep in the bush of Africa----which somehow had a missionary person baptize them----
is really idiotic and yet you do it ----INCESSANTLY. Did you
know that Iraqis are very good in math? The number system that we use today was all but invented there-----well--
actually it was imported from India------but the Baghdadis handed it to you. I am actually a bit offended that you compare the relatively sophisticated people of Iraq-----to naked bushmen---- (not that I have anything against either nakedness of---"the bush" )

 

[jon_berzerk]

I can't watch this any more....

Fried.

They're just looking to justify their hate. Your mistake was yhinking they could be reasoned with, or that facts would matter

This is not about hate. This is about the fact that ISIS asked their clerical Islamic religious leaders about the appropriate punishment for the pilot, and then dealt it. In other words the decision to burn the pilot was based on the same religious teaching that calls for Muslims to behead the unbelievers.

in this case the punishment to given to a Muslim

who killed Muslims

 

[irosie91]

Did you know that Hitler and Mussolini were both devout Catholics trying to conquer the world and set up a milenial kingdom for the Pope? The holocaust was just another Roman Catholic Inquisition. Only instead of wearing robes they wore Nazi uniforms. The outdoor mass held in Munich in 1937 was to bless the Nazi party and the Fuhrer. (there are photographs on record of this event) Mussolini and Franco signed official contracts with the Vatican called the Concordate ( it was a political and religious contract of mutual support) There are photographs of that event as well.

The signer was Cardinal Pacelli ( who later became Pope Pius XII) . By 1933 he was the Vatican secretary of State. Franz von Papen, a sinister Nazi and devout Roman Catholic was the Papal Nuncio ( ambassador to Germany - The Vatican's diplomat who hleped bring Hitler to Power).

Another one who was in on it was a Vatican prelate named Montini who later was to become Pope Paul VI.

Van Papen boasted to the world, "The Third Reich is the first power which not only recognizes, but puts into practice, the highest principles of the papacy. (DER VOELKISCHER BEOBACHTER, January 14, 1934)

In 1934 the German armed forces swore an oath of loyalty to Hitler using the same two fingered salute the Pope uses. As early as 1212, by papal edict - Jews were required to wear a distinctive badge and were forbidden from holding public office and that was enforced by the Dominicans. Additional papal decrees forbid the Jews, non Catholics and true Christians from owning real estate, selling new goods or living near Roman Catholics.

Adolf Hitler said, I reject that book by Rosenberg. It was written by a protestant. It is not a party book. As a Catholic I never felt comfortable in the evangelical church or structures. As for the Jews, I am just carrying on with the same policy the Catholic Church has adopted 1500 years ago, when it regarded the Jews as dangerous and pushed them into the ghettos because they knew what the Jews were like. I don't put race above religion, but I do see the danger in the representatives of the race for church and state, and perhaps I am doing Christianity a service. ( what a sick mind - to consider Catholicism Christianity! ) To Hitler, Christianity was Roman Catholicism. He serves Pius XII very faithfully.

The slaughter of the Jews was perfectly legal according to the laws of the Roman Catholic System (Still on the books today) Because according to the Council of Trent they were heretics and considered enemies of God. You and I are considered heretics by the Roman Catholic Church. Nothing has changed, Roudy. Those laws are still in effect today. Any Jew who trusts the Roman Catholic Church is meshugenah. Churchill once said that the further back you can see in history the further ahead you can see into the future.

Is it any wonder the Roman Church has been so busy rewriting history on what happened in holocaust and Inquisitions? Not to me it isn't. They are planning their next Inquisition even now! Wake up, Roudy!

Jeremiah----there is something to that which you have written----BUT NOT THAT MUCH. Not all popes are bad
guys

 

[jon_berzerk]

Scott Roeder did. Eric Rudolph did. John Salvi did. Michael Griffin did. The Reverend Paul Jennings Hill did. Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons and Kaye Wiggins called their Christmas Day bombing "a gift to Jesus on his birthday". All Christians. And lots more.

Now by your logic this has to mean that "Christianity sanctions muder". And bombing too for that matter. It MUST mean that.

Your own logic, dood.

You can keep running this illogic play over and over expecting different results; you won't get 'em.

If there were groups like that today killing and threatening all non Christians to follow their ideology all over the world, then yes, I'd take another look at the NT. But that's not the case is it. Christians are promoting coexistence and tolerance, while the opposite seems to be happening in the Muslim world. Even Muslims that immigrate to Western nations are now threatening and killing Christians in their own countries, in the name of Islam.

But of course all of this has nothing to do with Islam. Yep.

Ah, so a tiny irrepresentative sample of "our" people doesn't count, while a tiny irrepresentative sample of "theirs" does. Having it both ways: Priceless.

Still drowning in your own biased sample fallacy swill.

--- which kinda makes the outrage in the rest of the Muslim world over an execution method they consider abhorrent -- as I linked already two or three times --- difficult to explain, doesn't it?

This whole thread is like a chapter from 1984 -- emphasis on Doublethink.
And of course, Two Minutes Hate.

The outrage is because they did it to another Muslim. Where was all the outrage when they were beheading Christian human aid workers and posting the video on you tube? not abhorrent enough?

I see now you're trying to escape your own premise.

The thread is about burning, dood. IT'S THE FIRST WORD IN YOUR TITLE.

Fucking hypocrite.

And no, it's not because "they did it to another Muslim". Not satisfied with biased sample, sweeping generalization, composition and ad populum, now you're calling Red Herring in from the bullpen.

Yes, they burned the guy because he was a Muslim apostate, and that's exactly what Mohammad's most devout follower did to apostates.

Yes, the entire outrage in Jordan (which is a good thing, don't get me wrong) is because they burned a well known Jordanian pilot who was considered a national hero. Had ISIS burned four Americans and two Japanese in th same manner, there wouldn't be a single Muslim marching in the streets.

That's the inconvenient truth.

they burned him because that was what they seen as punishment

for his burning of other muslims (Qisas)

if you watch the video that is pretty clear

complete with the piling ruble on his dead body

 

[irosie91]

What a sick, perverted, barbaric religion Islam is:

Outrage in Mideast over IS killing of Jordan pilot - Yahoo News

Of course, to make a stupid point, the OP has to totally ignore the condemnation of these bastards but the vast majority of Muslims and leaders of Muslim majority countries.
The OP is also a sick fuck, using these idiot hate groups as a reason to hate all Muslims, even the poor dude these ***** burnt to death.

Of course you totally ignore the fact that they played the video of the burning pilot in front of a cheering crowd in Qabba with Muslim children enjoying it as well, and that thousands of Muslims are flocking to ISIS, which holds huge swaths of land.

You guys just hate it when someone tells the truth about Islam. Suddenly now, all these Islamic terrorist groups have become "hate groups"? Ha ha ha.

They hate us no doubt.

Jordan bombed the shit out if Isis in Syria last night.

Dicks of his type try to paint the extremists as the whole of Islam, totally ignoring the pilot was a Muslim, and Jordan's Muslims want ISIS destroyed.

Basically, he's a sick fucker.

Yes---the pilot was a muslim------I would be interested in a discussion of the case by a well recognized and competent
Muslim scholar. Strictly speaking-----as a muslim he was
entitled to a trial. The only way they could have gotten out
of that would be if the CALIPH declared him TAKFIR-----
to wit-----no longer a muslim and therefore "killable" by any means. I learned about Islamic law in 1971---during the civil war between east and west Pakistan. At that time the
muslim clerics of Pakistan were urging the west Pakistani
soldiers to rape the women of east Pakistan----both the hindus AND the MUSLIM GIRLS-----and rape they did----
to the point of an estimated 1/4 million. I was horrified (I was young then) ---but my muslim informants----(highly educated Pakistanis) clued me in----bit by bit. The hindu
girls of east Pakistan were clearly LEGALLY RAPABLE---
by Islamic law-----but the muslim girls were not until some
clerics declared them "TAKFIR" ----ie no longer muslim.
Of the 1/4 million rapes----none were ever prosecuted criminally. In the shariah shit hole in which my hubby was born-----the rape and murder of his grandmother (she was not yet a grandmother at the time----she was a mother of the kid who grew up to be hubby's father) was also ignored by the noble muslim community. Don't you think you should
explain how this recent event FITS into the "BEAUTY OF ISLAAAAAM Freddie?

 

[MaryL]

If that guy had not been a Muslim, it would have been ok to cage the victim and burn them to death.

What a sick, perverted, barbaric religion Islam is:

Outrage in Mideast over IS killing of Jordan pilot - Yahoo News

However, Hussein Bin Mahmoud, an Islamic State-linked theologian, claimed that two of the Prophet Muhammad's revered successors ordered similar punishment for Arab renegades in the seventh century.

While acknowledging the prophet's saying that God alone punishes by fire, Bin Mahmoud cited a Quranic verse that requires Muslims to punish their enemies in kind. Since U.S.-led airstrikes "burn" Muslims, he argued, the IS group must burn those behind the raids.

After the latest outrage, perhaps NAPALM is in order. Do UN troops still use flame throwers? Use them against these psychopaths, the so called Islamic state. They want to die for Allah? Let's burn these weasles.

 

[Pogo]

I can't watch this any more....

Fried.

They're just looking to justify their hate. Your mistake was yhinking they could be reasoned with, or that facts would matter

you are a bigger idiot then pogo

the fact is isil quoted Qisas (equality in punishment)

during the video fire for fire

No wonder you can't figure out insha'Allah -- you can't even figure out then. And that's English.
This space is usually reserved for Special Ed. Still SMH....

what a little bitch you are

spell flaming is a sure sign that you lost

that is because i am correct

and you are not

Jesus Christ on Steroids, did you take an overdose of Stupid or what???

This is the definition -- the ENTIRE definition, nothing left out --- from YOUR OWN LINK in post 78:

>>
inshallah


foreign term in·shal·lah \ˌin-shä-ˈlä\
Definition of INSHALLAH
: if Allah wills : God willing <<​

That's it. The end.

Not a fucking thing about "fire". Not a fucking thing about "Quizas, quizas, quizas". Not a fucking thing about "punishment". It doesn't even mean anything by itself. It has to be attached to some kind of speculation. Which could be about literally anything.

Your own link.

The depth of abject ignorance in this place absolutely boggles the mind.

 

[irosie91]

If that guy had not been a Muslim, it would have been ok to cage the victim and burn them to death.

What a sick, perverted, barbaric religion Islam is:

Outrage in Mideast over IS killing of Jordan pilot - Yahoo News

However, Hussein Bin Mahmoud, an Islamic State-linked theologian, claimed that two of the Prophet Muhammad's revered successors ordered similar punishment for Arab renegades in the seventh century.

While acknowledging the prophet's saying that God alone punishes by fire, Bin Mahmoud cited a Quranic verse that requires Muslims to punish their enemies in kind. Since U.S.-led airstrikes "burn" Muslims, he argued, the IS group must burn those behind the raids.

After the latest outrage, perhaps NAPALM is in order. Do UN troops still use flame throwers? Use them against these psychopaths, the so called Islamic state. They want to die for Allah? Let's burn these weasles.

mary ... don't go muslimah-ish on us

 

[irosie91]

I can't watch this any more....

Fried.

They're just looking to justify their hate. Your mistake was yhinking they could be reasoned with, or that facts would matter

This is not about hate. This is about the fact that ISIS asked their clerical Islamic religious leaders about the appropriate punishment for the pilot, and then dealt it. In other words the decision to burn the pilot was based on the same religious teaching that calls for Muslims to behead the unbelievers.

in this case the punishment to given to a Muslim

who killed Muslims

good point

 

[emilynghiem]

What a sick, perverted, barbaric religion Islam is:

Outrage in Mideast over IS killing of Jordan pilot - Yahoo News

However, Hussein Bin Mahmoud, an Islamic State-linked theologian, claimed that two of the Prophet Muhammad's revered successors ordered similar punishment for Arab renegades in the seventh century.

While acknowledging the prophet's saying that God alone punishes by fire, Bin Mahmoud cited a Quranic verse that requires Muslims to punish their enemies in kind. Since U.S.-led airstrikes "burn" Muslims, he argued, the IS group must burn those behind the raids.

This is why Islam teaches to respect Christian scripture also as sent by God.
So there is no retribution since revenge belongs to the Lord. Those who are true to God live by Restorative Justice which is Christ Jesus, not Retributive Justice which is the spirit of antichrist.

To a true Muslim believer, jihad means an internal struggle for peace, to refrain from evil and commit to what is good charitable and peaceful for all. To these extreme Jihadists, Jihad means war and wrath so they are idolizing the power of war not God as Goodness. Seeking the Greater Good is never at the expense of others but only only sacrificing of one's own interest and putting the welfare of all others first, not just your group or your interests which is selfish and material. Clearly this is serving Mammon or material desires for power and is not serving God.

This is political.

Political is not the spiritual level of peace that true believers in peace and justice seek.

Maybe I am spoiled and blessed to know Muslims who live and work for peace and justice in very humble and noble ways that I know the difference between them and Jihadists. There should always be check on political power and we need laws that can address political beliefs so these are never abused. Islam is not supposed to be a political religion without checks on it by either Christian laws and or natural laws from God like Constitutional due process that is missing here.

As long as Christianity is practiced as part of Islam as Mohammad instructed, then Christianity includes to respect civil laws and govt, so this should check against abuses. If it isn't enough to stop abuses, then Muslims should unite and agree on reforms such as recognizing all other teachings besides just Jewish Christian and Muslim that come from God and thus recognize Constitutional laws of govt that came from God in order to enforce due process. I support Muslims Christians Jews Constitutionalists working with other church and state leaders in this effort to prevent abuses of any political beliefs, not just Jihadists but abusers of any form of religious, political or corporate/collective authority. The same solutions will work for all cases of political abuse of power, not just this Jihadist issue of abusing Islam.

 

[irosie91]

I can't watch this any more....

Fried.

They're just looking to justify their hate. Your mistake was yhinking they could be reasoned with, or that facts would matter

you are a bigger idiot then pogo

the fact is isil quoted Qisas (equality in punishment)

during the video fire for fire

No wonder you can't figure out insha'Allah -- you can't even figure out then. And that's English.
This space is usually reserved for Special Ed. Still SMH....

what a little bitch you are

spell flaming is a sure sign that you lost

that is because i am correct

and you are not

Jesus Christ on Steroids, did you take an overdose of Stupid or what???

This is the definition -- the ENTIRE definition, nothing left out --- from YOUR OWN LINK in post 78:

>>
inshallah


foreign term in·shal·lah \ˌin-shä-ˈlä\
Definition of INSHALLAH
: if Allah wills : God willing <<​

That's it. The end.

Not a fucking thing about "fire". Not a fucking thing about "Quizas, quizas, quizas". Not a fucking thing about "punishment". It doesn't even mean anything by itself. It has to be attached to some kind of speculation. Which could be about literally anything.

Your own link.

The depth of abject ignorance in this place absolutely boggles the mind.

I do not know Arabic---or its grammar. It would be nice to know what "INSH" means----- roudy?? The expression is used incessantly by Arabic speakers--- ---like some people say "GOD WILLING" in order to annoy people. Most americans do not throw a "god-willing" ---
into every conversation------the use of inshallah underscores
the Islamic creed of pre-determination as opposed to
FREEWILL ---which is the theme of the first several books of the bible called "the old testament" in which GOD has lots of
will but cannot completely control the universe because humans also have free will. Interestingly enough----animals are not described as having "freewill"----they just have natural tendencies which they apparently have because
that is how they were created. Muslims have so little free will that I wonder how any can be convicted of a crime-----
---allah made them do it