" No Terrorism in Islam "

Nope. I was facetiously parodying their reporting attitude.
(A bit too well maybe lol)
The fact that that was just real enough to be in question for a sec though,
speaks volumes for the fact-based reporting that one can be accustomed to from the Bush netw- Ah, I mean Fox Network.

I think that religion has been used to guide people like puppets at a deranged show though.

Its like that quote... can't remember the originator, but the words were to the effect of:
"You can get good people to do good things.
You can also get bad people to do good things,
But to get good people to do bad things, you need to involve religion."

If you want an example of benevolent Islam its good to look at the Mali Empire. Eventhough Islam has negative aspects of it I think the Mali Empire is an example of muslims rejecting the bad and keeping the good. For the most part it seems they did not enforce their beliefs on people and even put women in postions in the government.

At the end of the day if you are a good person you will reject the negative but I think its easier to justify negativity with some religons.

What did the Quran mentioned is never commit aggression , fighting is allowed only for self-defense. Fighting must never be against non-combatants or non-fighting personnel.

but wasnt my post about the DEFINITION of combatant in today's world? many supposed "terrorists" consider the people they kill to be combatants.

In this regard, I would like to cite for you the following fatwa issued by Dr. `Ali Juma`ah, Mufti of Egypt, in which he states the following:

Indeed, hurling insults and attacking the noble personality of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) by non-Muslims is nothing new. Rather it is an often repeated scenario. I would like to stress that such insults against the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) do stress his high status and noble character…

Although we categorically deny the perverted behavior of those ill-mannered people who attack the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and insult him, we are ordered to call people to the truth with wisdom and fair exhortation.

Indeed, the enemies of Islam hurl insults and attacks not only on the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), but also on their own prophets and messengers. For example, Prophet Moses was insulted in a film directed by one of those avowed enemies, and so was Prophet Jesus (peace and blessings be upon them all).

Finally, I would like to state that the enemies of Islam will continue in their campaign of attacks and insults, especially against Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), and we Muslims warn them against their erroneous approach and the unjust trend they are embarking on!

errrrrr, thats not what i was asking. irrespective of that, the fact remains that it is mandatory on every muslim to kill sum1 who insults the prophet by the quran/hadith . true or untrue??? so cant a terrorist use that as an excuse to blow up "civilians" who have almost definately commited such a "sin" ?? and they support in wars which drive out muslims from their homes as i said before. also they fulfill the criteria of spreading "mischief" in any land the muslims claim is owned by them. so again u havent replied to it.

A ctually, this verdict given by Sa`d is purely from the torah, and no similar punishment can be found in any Islamic source .even many companions of the Prophet driven by mercy, told them that they could intercede and get them an amnesty from the Prophet. But Banu Quraizhah said,
"No, we will never violate the judgment of the Torah."

did i say it was from the quran? fact remains the prophet and ",muslims" still enforced it. also, a "spokesperson" with authority said that they wudnt violate the judgement of the torah. i already explains how he was probably brainwashed/didnt represent the dissenting women/didnt represent the will of the children who are too young to know of such matters, and on top pf everything, cud easily have been overridden by the prophet who cud SEE that it was the wrong decision. i mean, i dont beleive any shariah court should kill a person because they injured another person slightly. even if the VICTIM themselves wants to be killed for whatever personal beleifs. the victim shud rather be referred to a psychiatrist and NOT given the punishment they WANT. because it is still unjust, and any waise man can see it. im assuming the prophet and muslims were wrong in doing this fatima.

so please, post adequate replies to the points i posted.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
but wasnt my post about the DEFINITION of combatant in today's world? many supposed "terrorists" consider the people they kill to be combatants.

That's why we called them a terrorists ! 😄

Originally posted by leonheartmm
errrrrr, That's not what i was asking. irrespective of that, the fact remains that it is mandatory on every muslim to kill sum1 who insults the prophet by the quran/hadith . true or untrue??? so cant a terrorist use that as an excuse to blow up "civilians" who have almost definately commited such a "sin" ?? and they support in wars which drive out muslims from their homes as i said before. also they fulfill the criteria of spreading "mischief" in any land the muslims claim is owned by them. so again u havent replied to it.

Though I'm not a scholar , I know for sure that its the government duty to apply the law NOT any muslim go and kill any one who insult the prophet as you claim . Yet , in Quran there's no such clearly order to punish them (unless you've read something about it) and as I know at least from the Quranic teaching to "repel evil with what is better"(Fussilat 41:34)

Originally posted by leonheartmm
did i say it was from the quran? fact remains the prophet and ",muslims" still enforced it. also, a "spokesperson" with authority said that they wudnt violate the judgement of the torah. i already explains how he was probably brainwashed/didnt represent the dissenting women/didnt represent the will of the children who are too young to know of such matters, and on top pf everything, cud easily have been overridden by the prophet who cud SEE that it was the wrong decision. i mean, i dont beleive any shariah court should kill a person because they injured another person slightly. even if the VICTIM themselves wants to be killed for whatever personal beleifs. the victim shud rather be referred to a psychiatrist and NOT given the punishment they WANT. because it is still unjust, and any waise man can see it. im assuming the prophet and muslims were wrong in doing this fatima..

well I dont think so , the prophet forgave them when they breached the agreement in the first time and honestly that was VERY merciful . the Muslim army, which by the highest estimates was only one thousand-strong, was facing a ten thousand-strong army in full arms .They perhaps could be killed by them(jews) and you telling me that this still unjust and this was SLIGHTLY injury .just like any criminal, they were a massive threat to the public security of the society and they deserve to be treated this way .

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Nope. I was facetiously parodying their reporting attitude.
(A bit too well maybe lol)
The fact that that was just real enough to be in question for a sec though,
speaks volumes for the fact-based reporting that one can be accustomed to from the Bush netw- Ah, I mean Fox Network.

I think that religion has been used to guide people like puppets at a deranged show though.

Its like that quote... can't remember the originator, but the words were to the effect of:
"You can get good people to do good things.
You can also get bad people to do good things,
But to get good people to do bad things, you need to involve religion."

lol I see ..Now its the time to vote for Democrats and get rid of those bastards 🙂

Originally posted by Fatima

Though I'm not a scholar , I know for sure that its the government duty to apply the law NOT any muslim go and kill any one who insult the prophet as you claim . Yet , in Quran there's no such clearly order to punish them (unless you've read something about it) and as I know at least from the Quranic teaching to "repel evil with what is better"(Fussilat 41:34)

Right its just some other people who are allowed to do it?

Originally posted by Fatima

well I dont think so , the prophet forgave them when they breached the agreement in the first time and honestly that was VERY merciful . the Muslim army, which by the highest estimates was only one thousand-strong, was facing a ten thousand-strong army in full arms .They perhaps could be killed by them(jews) and you telling me that this still unjust and this was SLIGHTLY injury .just like any criminal, they were a massive threat to the public security of the society and they deserve to be treated this way .

If Mohammed had just left everybody alone like they asked none of that would have happened in the first place.

Originally posted by Fatima
lol I see ..Now its the time to vote for Democrats and get rid of those bastards 🙂

If we vote Dempocrat the terrorists win.

That's why we called them a terrorists ! 😄

true. but from my argument, they cud alos be seen as equally good muslims. THAT is what i asked u to address

Though I'm not a scholar , I know for sure that its the government duty to apply the law NOT any muslim go and kill any one who insult the prophet as you claim . Yet , in Quran there's no such clearly order to punish them (unless you've read something about it) and as I know at least from the Quranic teaching to "repel evil with what is better"(Fussilat 41:34)

i cud simply call it a contradiction. but that wud spark an off topic debate. fact remains that it is mandatory on every muslim to slay a person who has knowingly blasphemed against the prophet or allah .

well I dont think so , the prophet forgave them when they breached the agreement in the first time and honestly that was VERY merciful . the Muslim army, which by the highest estimates was only one thousand-strong, was facing a ten thousand-strong army in full arms .They perhaps could be killed by them(jews) and you telling me that this still unjust and this was SLIGHTLY injury .just like any criminal, they were a massive threat to the public security of the society and they deserve to be treated this way .

your not adressing the question posted, here ill repost it so you can re read and re reply to it.

did i say it was from the quran? fact remains the prophet and ",muslims" still enforced it. also, a "spokesperson" with authority said that they wudnt violate the judgement of the torah. i already explains how he was probably brainwashed/didnt represent the dissenting women/didnt represent the will of the children who are too young to know of such matters, and on top pf everything, cud easily have been overridden by the prophet who cud SEE that it was the wrong decision. i mean, i dont beleive any shariah court should kill a person because they injured another person slightly. even if the VICTIM themselves wants to be killed for whatever personal beleifs. the victim shud rather be referred to a psychiatrist and NOT given the punishment they WANT. because it is still unjust, and any waise man can see it. im assuming the prophet and muslims were wrong in doing this fatima..

n it wasnt very merciful. as i said that a lot of the men, almost all of the women and none of the children had any part in it so its wrong to make them suffer. the women andchildren were neither a threat nor criminals, same goes for the a lot of the men too, they did in NO WAY deserve to be treated the way they were by the muslims in the end. that is a very wrong thing to say. i think we must admit the instances the muslims were in the right AND the instances where muslims and the prophet were in the wrong. and this is one of those instances fatima. there is really no way to justify it.

Originally posted by Fatima
What did the Quran mentioned is never commit aggression , fighting is allowed only for self-defense. Fighting must never be against non-combatants or non-fighting personnel.

How is "Slay the unbelievers where ever you find them" (Sura II: The Cow) promote self-defense? That's an order to search and destroy, regardless if the unbeliever is a combatant or not.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How is "Slay the unbelievers where ever you find them" (Sura II: The Cow) promote self-defense? That's an order to search and destroy, regardless if the unbeliever is a combatant or not.

in all due fairness though, that verse is directly related to the exact time of war, and i beleive if u continue reading, it is directly followerd by sumthing like "but if they make/declare peace, than dont raise watever-watever against them{basically saying that it is illegal to even cut a person after the proclamation of peace even if just before, your sword was swinging to cut their neck"

There is no Terrorism in Islam, only people who blow up people,cars and buildings and try to force there ideology on others.

Originally posted by TRH
There is no Terrorism in Islam, only people who blow up people,cars and buildings and try to force there ideology on others.

Oh No? Sorry I think not my friend.Must i bring up Farfur(I think that's how it's spelled)Thier Mickey Mouse that teaches To kill those how don't belive in their tin god.

Lets not bring up the second class citienship of Jews, & christains

Originally posted by leonheartmm
in all due fairness though, that verse is directly related to the exact time of war, and i beleive if u continue reading, it is directly followerd by sumthing like "but if they make/declare peace, than dont raise watever-watever against them{basically saying that it is illegal to even cut a person after the proclamation of peace even if just before, your sword was swinging to cut their neck"

Actually, that exact line is repeated several times through out the Koran, it just makes it's first appearance in the second Sura. In fact, the Koran is a book of many repititions; it constantly and periodically reminds you to kill unbelievers, the dietary laws, how to conduct your marriage, manage your business and so on.

And the line I quoted isn't just referring to times of conflict.

Originally posted by Shalimar_fox
Must i bring up Farfur(I think that's how it's spelled)Thier Mickey Mouse that teaches To kill those how don't belive in their tin god.

🤨.....what.....in the hell are you talking about??

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

🤨.....what.....in the hell are you talking about??

He might be talking abut when Umar conquered a land he made the jewes and christians wear different colours to muslims. UMar was guaranteed heaven, but in all fairness not all muslim rulers did this.

but again, muhammad said that as lomng as the first 4 caliphs ruled{or was it first 3}, his nation wud never choose the wroong path or they will never go astray. umar was the second caliph after abu bakr wasnt he. so either his actions shud be taken as right and in the bounds of islam, or it shud be admitted that the prophet muhammad was wrong in making the claim.
fact is, islam is pretty much like most other organised relegions out there, nuthing better or worse.

Originally posted by Shalimar_fox
Oh No? Sorry I think not my friend.Must i bring up Farfur(I think that's how it's spelled)Thier Mickey Mouse that teaches To kill those how don't belive in their tin god.

Lets not bring up the second class citienship of Jews, & christains

Islam + bad clothing = Me wanting to eat French fries and forget the stupidity.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Islam + bad clothing = Me wanting to eat French fries and forget the stupidity.

Give me some of that... You are having why to much fun. 😆

But you always hog it! 😠

Must i bring up Farfur(I think that's how it's spelled)Thier Mickey Mouse that teaches To kill those how don't belive in their tin god