Islam forbids

[Kalam]

You linked me to this thread. Why?

I have already explained your purpose.

Given the quality of discussion I've encountered in this thread so far, I'm out of here unless you give me a better reason to stay than this.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

there must be something in the koran or other accepted material that proves beyond all doubt that non-muhammdans are innocent people

You 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?

One would assume that the Quran and 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.

 

[Kalam]

there must be something in the koran or other accepted material that proves beyond all doubt that non-muhammdans are innocent people

You 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?

One would assume that the Quran and 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.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

You 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?

One would assume that the Quran and 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.

Do you have any links to opinions from an imam,ayatollah, sheik ,mufti or trusted advisor you would like to link to to verify the opinion you hold?

 

[Kalam]

One would assume that the Quran and 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.

Do you have any links to opinions from an imam,ayatollah, sheik ,mufti or trusted advisor you would like to link to to verify the opinion you hold?

I've provided you with claims and specific Qur'anic verses that support them. I study the Qur'an - I don't need a rhetorician's opinion to validate what I already know to be true and what I have already corroborated for you with scripture. Do you have any other weak attempts to dodge my points that you'd like to use?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

And according to Islam only allah has the right to be worshiped?
Would it be wrong according to Islam to disbelieve?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

By the by ,do you happen to have the meaning of the word AL-Zulm derived for the word Zalama

 

[Kalam]

And according to Islam only allah has the right to be worshiped?
Would it be wrong according to Islam to disbelieve?

Yes, but disbelief per se is not a punishable crime. See 109:1-6, 18:29, 10:99, etc.

 

[Kalam]

By the by ,do you happen to have the meaning of the word AL-Zulm derived for the word Zalama

"Oppression" or, less concisely, "denial of rights." Why?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

And according to Islam only allah has the right to be worshiped?
Would it be wrong according to Islam to disbelieve?

Yes,

So denying allahs right to be worshiped by worshiping others is no big deal in Islam?
Suggestion allah should not be worshiped is no big deal in Islam?
telling people Mohammad was not a prophet of god is no big deal in Islam?
Or does all that fall under a different category than disbelief?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

By the by ,do you happen to have the meaning of the word AL-Zulm derived for the word Zalama

"Oppression" or, less concisely, "denial of rights." Why?

The word Al-Zulm (oppression) is opposite to the word Al-A'del (justice) and is derived linguistically from the word Zalama which means the following:
Injustice, Darkness, Aggression, Doing the Inappropriate and Preventing a right etc.


The Definition of Al-Zulm or Oppression In Juristic Terminology: Al-I'tidaa Ala Al-Huqouq Bedoun Wajih Shar'ie - Aggression against Rights without a Divine Permit.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

From the Quran

[8:39] And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah 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, etc.)

Az-zalimun one who does zulm

The word Al-Zulm (oppression) is opposite to the word Al-A'del (justice) and is derived linguistically from the word Zalama which means the following:
Injustice, Darkness, Aggression, Doing the Inappropriate and Preventing a right etc.

one who does wrong things, inappropriate things, like disbelief.

 

[Kalam]

By the by ,do you happen to have the meaning of the word AL-Zulm derived for the word Zalama

"Oppression" or, less concisely, "denial of rights." Why?

The word Al-Zulm (oppression) is opposite to the word Al-A'del (justice) and is derived linguistically from the word Zalama which means the following:
Injustice, Darkness, Aggression, Doing the Inappropriate and Preventing a right etc.


The Definition of Al-Zulm or Oppression In Juristic Terminology: Al-I'tidaa Ala Al-Huqouq Bedoun Wajih Shar'ie - Aggression against Rights without a Divine Permit.

So precisely what I said. The transliteration through me off for a second, by the way; it's difficult for me as a non-native student of Arabic to determine at first glance whether "z" refers to ز or ظ. In this case it was the latter, which could more properly be represented (in my opinion) by "dh".

Anyway, what was the point of this?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

"Oppression" or, less concisely, "denial of rights." Why?

The word Al-Zulm (oppression) is opposite to the word Al-A'del (justice) and is derived linguistically from the word Zalama which means the following:
Injustice, Darkness, Aggression, Doing the Inappropriate and Preventing a right etc.


The Definition of Al-Zulm or Oppression In Juristic Terminology: Al-I'tidaa Ala Al-Huqouq Bedoun Wajih Shar'ie - Aggression against Rights without a Divine Permit.

So precisely what I said. The transliteration through me off for a second, by the way; it's difficult for me as a non-native student of Arabic to determine at first glance whether "z" refers to ز or ظ. In this case it was the latter, which could more properly be represented (in my opinion) by "dh".

Anyway, what was the point of this?

So if one where to deny allahs right to be worshiped, according to the definition you just agreed , would be an act of aggression.
Correct?

 

[Kalam]

Az-zalimun one who does zulm

Which, as we have established, means "oppression," "injustice," or "denial of rights."

one who does wrong things, inappropriate things, like disbelief.

Once again, you are incorrect, because once again, you refer to an inaccurate translation with controversial and radical additions by its author. Zalimeen or zalimuun are, literally, "oppressors," "perpetrators of injustice," and "deniers of rights." If the passage had referred to disbelievers, kafiruun would have been used to describe them. Mere disbelief does not qualify as zulm because it does not intrinsically involve harming others. If a person's disbelief drives them to rob Muslims of their freedom of worship, however, they are oppressors.

 

[Kalam]

The word Al-Zulm (oppression) is opposite to the word Al-A'del (justice) and is derived linguistically from the word Zalama which means the following:
Injustice, Darkness, Aggression, Doing the Inappropriate and Preventing a right etc.


The Definition of Al-Zulm or Oppression In Juristic Terminology: Al-I'tidaa Ala Al-Huqouq Bedoun Wajih Shar'ie - Aggression against Rights without a Divine Permit.

So precisely what I said. The transliteration through me off for a second, by the way; it's difficult for me as a non-native student of Arabic to determine at first glance whether "z" refers to ز or ظ. In this case it was the latter, which could more properly be represented (in my opinion) by "dh".

Anyway, what was the point of this?

So if one where to deny allahs right to be worshiped, according to the definition you just agreed , would be an act of aggression.
Correct?

Incorrect. A human being is not capable of deny Allah any "rights." There is no physical punishment for shortcomings in one's relationship with Allah; that is settled by Allah, not by man. If one were to deny the right of others to worship Allah, on the other hand, it would be an act of aggression.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Az-zalimun one who does zulm

Which, as we have established, means "oppression," "injustice," or "denial of rights."

one who does wrong things, inappropriate things, like disbelief.

Once again, you are incorrect, because once again, you refer to an inaccurate translation with controversial and radical additions by its author. Zalimeen or zalimuun are, literally, "oppressors," "perpetrators of injustice," and "deniers of rights." If the passage had referred to disbelievers, kafiruun would have been used to describe them. Mere disbelief does not qualify as zulm because it does not intrinsically involve harming others. If a person's disbelief drives them to rob Muslims of their freedom of worship, however, they are oppressors.

So one would have to make a muslim aware of his disbelief , then he would be a denier of rightsm a perpetrator of injustice an oppressor .

 

[Kalam]

Az-zalimun one who does zulm

Which, as we have established, means "oppression," "injustice," or "denial of rights."

one who does wrong things, inappropriate things, like disbelief.

Once again, you are incorrect, because once again, you refer to an inaccurate translation with controversial and radical additions by its author. Zalimeen or zalimuun are, literally, "oppressors," "perpetrators of injustice," and "deniers of rights." If the passage had referred to disbelievers, kafiruun would have been used to describe them. Mere disbelief does not qualify as zulm because it does not intrinsically involve harming others. If a person's disbelief drives them to rob Muslims of their freedom of worship, however, they are oppressors.

So one would have to make a muslim aware of his disbelief , then he would be a denier of rightsm a perpetrator of injustice an oppressor .

No, one would have to practice one's disbelief in a way that clearly limited Muslims' freedom to worship. China's somewhat recent attempt to force mosques to close and prevent Muslims' access to religious facilities would be an example of "oppression." Declaring oneself a disbeliever in Islam and living a non-Islamic lifestyle does a Muslim no intrinsic harm and would simply be "disbelief."

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

So precisely what I said. The transliteration through me off for a second, by the way; it's difficult for me as a non-native student of Arabic to determine at first glance whether "z" refers to ز or ظ. In this case it was the latter, which could more properly be represented (in my opinion) by "dh".

Anyway, what was the point of this?

So if one where to deny allahs right to be worshiped, according to the definition you just agreed , would be an act of aggression.
Correct?

Incorrect. A human being is not capable of deny Allah any "rights." There is no physical punishment for shortcomings in one's relationship with Allah; that is settled by Allah, not by man. If one were to deny the right of others to worship Allah, on the other hand, it would be an act of aggression.

What about denying mohammad was a prophet of any god?
would that be an act of aggression?

 

[Kalam]

So if one where to deny allahs right to be worshiped, according to the definition you just agreed , would be an act of aggression.
Correct?

Incorrect. A human being is not capable of deny Allah any "rights." There is no physical punishment for shortcomings in one's relationship with Allah; that is settled by Allah, not by man. If one were to deny the right of others to worship Allah, on the other hand, it would be an act of aggression.

What about denying mohammad was a prophet of any god?
would that be an act of aggression?

Not inherently. Hence the multitude of agreements between Muhammad himself and groups of disbelievers.