Jump to content


Photo

Islam In The News

Whats happened

33 replies to this topic

#1 koalaboi

koalaboi
  • Members
  • 681 posts

Posted 27 May 2013 - 08:22 PM

Hi everyone,

 

This part of the forum used to be such a happening thing but now is kind of dead. I really miss the dialogue.

 

A great interchange in today's Sydney Morning Herald and yet no interest?

 

Start with Paul Sheehan's invective here:

 

http://www.smh.com.a...0526-2n535.html

 

Then, the response from Randa Adbel Fattah here:

 

http://www.smh.com.a...0527-2n6um.html

 

Enjoy AND put in your 2  bob's worth!

 

 

KB


  • 0

#2 Nouhed 'Nev'

Nouhed 'Nev'
  • Brothers
  • 396 posts

Posted 27 May 2013 - 08:50 PM

Paul Sheehan is welcome to visit Auburn Gallipoli Mosque for a mosque tour, or alternatively he can have a chat with the brothers and sisters at Affinity and Isra.  If he wants to talk about Muslims, he should chat with Muslims, in particular those at the above-mentioned organisations.


  • 1

#3 Nouhed 'Nev'

Nouhed 'Nev'
  • Brothers
  • 396 posts

Posted 27 May 2013 - 09:09 PM

I had a quick read of both articles, I need to read them again.  However I need to make a point.  Once I was having breakfast with two friends, one Muslim and one non-Muslim, before we headed back to Sydney.  We had spent the previous day down down south, and the night sharing a motel room.

 

The non-Muslim friend asked us, the two Muslims, a very honest question.  Why is that some Muslims around the world murder innocent people and commit acts of terrorism, including suicide bombings, and then believe that doing so will get them direct entry into paradise by making God pleased?  He also mentioned that people make out our religion teaches us to do such actions, based on what is happening in the world.

 

My first response was that if this was the case, he would not be alive, as I am striving so that God will be pleased with me, and that if it involved the above actions, then he would be my quickest path to get to paradise.  My Muslim friend mentioned he has not read anything in the Qur'an that would lead him to commit such actions.


  • 0

#4 furry_animal

furry_animal
  • Members
  • 1,069 posts

Posted 28 May 2013 - 12:54 AM

That article by Randa is so appalling bad and wrong and deceptive and misleading and head stuck in the sand that I wouldn't know where to start with a critique.  And it comes across as a rant with poor formatting and different sized fonts and a small "k" used as in "koranic".


  • 0

#5 koalaboi

koalaboi
  • Members
  • 681 posts

Posted 28 May 2013 - 05:20 AM

That article by Randa is so appalling bad and wrong and deceptive and misleading and head stuck in the sand that I wouldn't know where to start with a critique.  And it comes across as a rant with poor formatting and different sized fonts and a small "k" used as in "koranic".

 

I'd really be interersted to read even a limited critique on the article.

 

KB


  • 0

#6 Nouhed 'Nev'

Nouhed 'Nev'
  • Brothers
  • 396 posts

Posted 28 May 2013 - 11:48 AM

Critical opinion of Islam ignores the fundamental truths

Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz2UY1dpIlP

 

an excellent article from Mohamad Abdalla, in reply to the original article from Paul Sheehan.


  • 0

#7 Nouhed 'Nev'

Nouhed 'Nev'
  • Brothers
  • 396 posts

Posted 28 May 2013 - 11:56 AM

although I strongly suggest reading the article link I posted earlier, this is also a good read

http://muslimvillage...-men-to-terror/

 

Critical opinion of Islam ignores the fundamental truths

Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz2UY1dpIlP

 

an excellent article from Mohamad Abdalla, in reply to the original article from Paul Sheehan.


  • 0

#8 Methinks

Methinks
  • Members
  • 417 posts

Posted 28 May 2013 - 10:59 PM

Assalamoalaikum.

 

Am I the only one who felt slightly cheated when reading Sheehan's article? "Twisting Islam to justify cruelty" said the heading. And up until halfway through the article I found myself in agreeance with both that sentiment and the author. Yes, I thought, how right he is and of course they (the Woolwich murderers) twisted Islam. And the same two psychopaths appearing on our tvs with bloodied hands, knives and cleavers were probably also suffering from some sort of psychological affliction or deficiency which led them to a twisted mental state. But the biggest twist was still to come and was delivered by Sheehan himself. What he followed with was a series of unreferenced, contextless quotations from the Quran and hadiths, coupled with equally meaningless statistics.


"Statistics are like bikinis.  What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."
- Aaron Levenstein

 

 This led on to an unexpected and absurd conclusion that - actually Islam does justify cruelty. Apparently no twisting was required after all! One question the article raises for me though is, does Paul Sheehan actually believe his own rhetoric? Perhaps he does which leaves me feeling oddly embarrassed for him. Or, given the slightly 'cut and paste' feel of parts of his article, perhaps he has substituted the time and effort of an honest, rigorous investigation of Islamic theology with the readymade conclusions of websites which rely heavily on distortion, selective interpretation and deliberate avoidance and ignorance of Islamic sources and voices which contradict their own agenda. Come to think of it, this is the exact mindset and approach of the 'Muslims' whose Islam they and he rail against. Oh the irony of it all!

 

Wasalam


  • 0

#9 Kostas

Kostas

    Agnostic Greek Australian

  • Members
  • 715 posts

Posted 28 May 2013 - 11:27 PM


Enjoy AND put in your 2 bob's worth!


KB

I can do better than that.

Did Aussies, Poms and Yanks give as much consideration on the stabbing in the back 3 x of the 75yo Muslim Grandfather in Birmingham less than a month earlier??????
http://www.bbc.co.uk...ingham-22348820
NO.
And why is that?, I've asked a couple.
Coz they didn't hear about it, is the response.

Ok, so we don't give consideration to killings unless the media presents it as a bombardment of repetition.

You've gotta love their moral regulator... "murdoch".
Doesn't really speak highly of their morals, does it?????

Both victims were apparently unarmed.
One, as many eulogies might expectedly declare, was "a warrior"; but I'd justifiably say that he lived by the sword (but took days off), and the other was a man of peace. There is nothing to refute that.
In the interest of appeasing commonwealth nationalists, I'm happy to call both killings evil, but I've decided which was the greater evil.

Here's a response by an Aussie blogger to some other issues of "morality" and Islam raised by Murdoch or those that accept scraps on their plate from him.
It might answer some of your questions.
http://middleeastrea...nfographic.html

Meanwhile, although police are often " puzzled by the motive" (as in the above bbc link) when Indians or Muslims are attacked.......Julia Gillard is so moved to take a unique action by a unique form of blood curdling racism even evidenced in Australia, Melbourne when "graffiti was sprayed painted in a shopping centre" that she signed The London Declaration on Combating Anti- Semitism.
http://www.pm.gov.au...mmunity-leaders
Since then, another 40 or so Australian MP's have rushed to sign also.

We've established that Murduch is the moral regulator for us, and along with Holywood consumption (not much difference), it's no wonder that our representatives think it's the only racism worthy of a global "combat" over. (just for argument's sake, I'll give'em that benefit of doubt, although I don't buy that)

Although Australian's heads are full of these fanciful notions and distorted morals because of their seeming inability to google and see through propaganda; apparently they seem really interested in Islam.
Perhaps next week, Murdoch will have a 2 page glossy lift out in The Weekend Australian with an in depth study on "Islam's Compatibility With The Advanced West"

wake up kb, we're being played for suckers.
  • 0
As an Australian of Greek lineage, with who knows... perhaps some Turkish that nobody in my clan has spoken of [wink].. I wish to examine all, and as a lover of free speech (short of inciting harm to others) I expect the right to critique all as freely as anyone.
Just like Socrates.. but keep your hemlock.
My opinions are my own and not necessarily endorsed by anyone.

ps
Any barcode beginning with 729.... is not a perfect way of telling when a product is from Israel, but it is a good rule of thumb.

#10 Kostas

Kostas

    Agnostic Greek Australian

  • Members
  • 715 posts

Posted 28 May 2013 - 11:35 PM

Did you know kb..
that The Christian Bible teaches to kill these Muslims, without pity, if they try to convert us??

Deuteronomy
13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die
  • 0
As an Australian of Greek lineage, with who knows... perhaps some Turkish that nobody in my clan has spoken of [wink].. I wish to examine all, and as a lover of free speech (short of inciting harm to others) I expect the right to critique all as freely as anyone.
Just like Socrates.. but keep your hemlock.
My opinions are my own and not necessarily endorsed by anyone.

ps
Any barcode beginning with 729.... is not a perfect way of telling when a product is from Israel, but it is a good rule of thumb.

#11 Kostas

Kostas

    Agnostic Greek Australian

  • Members
  • 715 posts

Posted 29 May 2013 - 12:12 AM

More from the Australian Zionist Moral Regulator.

http://middleeastrea...ure-poison.html
  • 0
As an Australian of Greek lineage, with who knows... perhaps some Turkish that nobody in my clan has spoken of [wink].. I wish to examine all, and as a lover of free speech (short of inciting harm to others) I expect the right to critique all as freely as anyone.
Just like Socrates.. but keep your hemlock.
My opinions are my own and not necessarily endorsed by anyone.

ps
Any barcode beginning with 729.... is not a perfect way of telling when a product is from Israel, but it is a good rule of thumb.

#12 Kostas

Kostas

    Agnostic Greek Australian

  • Members
  • 715 posts

Posted 29 May 2013 - 01:20 AM

Oh, and since they've identified the threat of antisemitism, the first 3 out of 3 google results for the words amalek+mitzvah make it quite clear what to do with them and their "seed".

http://www.chabad.or...malek-Today.htm
http://www.yeshiva.c...iur.asp?id=1329
http://www.torahtrut...2008/05/amalek/

and there I was along with most of the civilised world, thinking that the thing to do with racists; is to turn your back on or swear at and taunt them.

I do love open discourse. Most can't seem to handle it.
  • 0
As an Australian of Greek lineage, with who knows... perhaps some Turkish that nobody in my clan has spoken of [wink].. I wish to examine all, and as a lover of free speech (short of inciting harm to others) I expect the right to critique all as freely as anyone.
Just like Socrates.. but keep your hemlock.
My opinions are my own and not necessarily endorsed by anyone.

ps
Any barcode beginning with 729.... is not a perfect way of telling when a product is from Israel, but it is a good rule of thumb.

#13 koalaboi

koalaboi
  • Members
  • 681 posts

Posted 29 May 2013 - 05:57 AM

How come we're back to anti-semitism?

 

Don't dreail the thread.


  • 0

#14 Kostas

Kostas

    Agnostic Greek Australian

  • Members
  • 715 posts

Posted 29 May 2013 - 01:43 PM

"antisemitism"... what a furphy.
You don't hear the Irish complaining about being the ubiquitous subject of jokes.
That's because they don't suffer from PRE-traumatic-stress disorder.

All I've stated are some FACTS, unlike the fabrications on 'the Muslim question' being bandied around by your media, your government, and your people.

You want to discuss 'the Muslim question' but not the political or ethnic affiliations of those that create and disseminate the fabrications regarding the issue. Is that right???????
You want to analyse the symptoms, without looking at the possible roots.

Even though [fact] the Muslim residents among The Axis Of The Willing are too spooked to discuss this publicly; I'm not.
Julia and many of "our representatives", along with your help, are eager to to silence me.
When they finally jail me and all others like me for thought crimes; you can boast how you helped make the world a safer place.
Why not start by reporting me to our Jewish Zionist Federal Attorney General, or our Jewish Zionist head of ASIO, and they can force the hemlock down my throat, as (I dare say) is their intent.

let's not be racist hey??? or WORSE STILL "antisemitic"... instead, let us discuss 72 virgins etc.
  • 1
As an Australian of Greek lineage, with who knows... perhaps some Turkish that nobody in my clan has spoken of [wink].. I wish to examine all, and as a lover of free speech (short of inciting harm to others) I expect the right to critique all as freely as anyone.
Just like Socrates.. but keep your hemlock.
My opinions are my own and not necessarily endorsed by anyone.

ps
Any barcode beginning with 729.... is not a perfect way of telling when a product is from Israel, but it is a good rule of thumb.

#15 Kostas

Kostas

    Agnostic Greek Australian

  • Members
  • 715 posts

Posted 29 May 2013 - 06:22 PM

keep in mind kb; it was you that brought up a topic offensive as raising the issue of "The Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion" on a Jewish website.
And then you turn around and deem information "antisemitic" just because YOU, again, fail to see/or acknowledge the relevance.
  • 0
As an Australian of Greek lineage, with who knows... perhaps some Turkish that nobody in my clan has spoken of [wink].. I wish to examine all, and as a lover of free speech (short of inciting harm to others) I expect the right to critique all as freely as anyone.
Just like Socrates.. but keep your hemlock.
My opinions are my own and not necessarily endorsed by anyone.

ps
Any barcode beginning with 729.... is not a perfect way of telling when a product is from Israel, but it is a good rule of thumb.

#16 furry_animal

furry_animal
  • Members
  • 1,069 posts

Posted 30 May 2013 - 02:17 AM

You should seek help, Kostas.

 

Or alternatively, don't seek help.

 

And thus continue to entertain the world to the views of your mind.

 

I certainly enjoy them immensely.


  • 0

#17 Kostas

Kostas

    Agnostic Greek Australian

  • Members
  • 715 posts

Posted 30 May 2013 - 07:12 AM

You should seek help, Kostas.

 

Or alternatively, don't seek help.

 

And thus continue to entertain the world to the views of your mind.

 

I certainly enjoy them immensely.

 

Your advice is noted. f.a.

're-education' is an often favoured tool for fascists and totalitarian regimes.


  • 0
As an Australian of Greek lineage, with who knows... perhaps some Turkish that nobody in my clan has spoken of [wink].. I wish to examine all, and as a lover of free speech (short of inciting harm to others) I expect the right to critique all as freely as anyone.
Just like Socrates.. but keep your hemlock.
My opinions are my own and not necessarily endorsed by anyone.

ps
Any barcode beginning with 729.... is not a perfect way of telling when a product is from Israel, but it is a good rule of thumb.

#18 Event Horizon

Event Horizon
  • Members
  • 716 posts

Posted 30 May 2013 - 08:31 AM

 This led on to an unexpected and absurd conclusion that - actually Islam does justify cruelty

 

Islam certainly has no shortage of descriptions of grotesque cruelty. For instance, as a non-believer, Surat Al-Haj assures me that:

 

 

Those who are unbelievers will have garments of fire cut out for them, and boiling water poured over their heads, which will melt the contents of their bellies as well as their skin, and they will be beaten with cudgels made of iron.

 

 

Cheers,

 

EH

  

 

 


  • 0
... endless forms most beautiful...

#19 furry_animal

furry_animal
  • Members
  • 1,069 posts

Posted 30 May 2013 - 08:43 AM

Islam certainly has no shortage of descriptions of grotesque cruelty. For instance, as a non-believer, Surat Al-Haj assures me that:

 

 

Those who are unbelievers will have garments of fire cut out for them, and boiling water poured over their heads, which will melt the contents of their bellies as well as their skin, and they will be beaten with cudgels made of iron.

 

 

Cheers,

 

EH

 

C'mon EH, you've taken that quote out of context.


  • 0

#20 Methinks

Methinks
  • Members
  • 417 posts

Posted 30 May 2013 - 11:55 AM

Islam certainly has no shortage of descriptions of grotesque

cruelty. For instance, as a non-believer, Surat Al-Haj assures

me that:
 
 
 
 
 
Those who are unbelievers will have garments of fire cut out

for them, and boiling water poured over their heads, which

will melt the contents of their bellies as well as their skin,

and they will be beaten with cudgels made of iron.
 
 
 
 
 
Cheers,
 
 
 
EH

 


Assalamoalaikum

 

Thankyou for your viewpoint EH but perhaps you missed the point I was alluding to with regards to the disconnect between the title and the body of the article by Paul Sheehan.

 

Secondly, I'm a little puzzled by your quotation from Surah Al-Hajj. Sheehan was drawing an inference, if not a linear connection, between the religion of Islam (as he interprets it) and the actions of the Woolwich murderers and others who commit acts of violence in the name of Islam. The Quranic quotation you have posted clearly (when read in entirety) refers to punishment by God after the day of resurrection, i.e. it refers to hell. But my earlier statement spoke of the absurdity of the conclusion that the religion of Islam, as God intends it to be practiced, justifies cruelty.


 So is your assertion simply that hell (as described in the Quran) is grotesque and cruel? Or are you saying that a description of hell in the Quran depicting it as cruel is proof that Islam justifies cruelty?

 

It's worth keeping in mind that the language used in the Quran when describing heaven and hell is metaphorical. For instance in the same Surah, heaven is described in the following terms.

 

"But Allah will cause those who believe and do good deeds to enter Gardens beneath which rivers flow. They will be adorned therein with bracelets of gold, and with pearls; and their raiment therein will be of silk." Holy Quran, Surah Al-Hajj, 22:24

 

Conclusion: Heaven sounds better than hell. And given that the resurrection to these two abodes will be spiritual rather than physical, and that (as stated in the Quran) our precise understanding of the type of existences there is incomprehensible to our current conciousness, it seems to me to be pointless to be getting hung up on the semantics of such descriptions as given in the Quran.


"We will raise you into a form of which you have not the slightest knowledge." Holy Quran, Surah Al-Waqiah 56:62

 

Wasalam


  • 0

#21 DancesWithChairs

DancesWithChairs
  • Members
  • 67 posts

Posted 30 May 2013 - 03:22 PM

I read both articles. The response by the musli cleric confirms that verses of the Koran have been abrogated.

 

Where can I find a copy of the Koran with the abrogated verses removed? 


  • 0

#22 koalaboi

koalaboi
  • Members
  • 681 posts

Posted 30 May 2013 - 03:32 PM

gal-land-Moir-600x400.jpg


  • 0

#23 koalaboi

koalaboi
  • Members
  • 681 posts

Posted 30 May 2013 - 03:45 PM

Personally I got over Paul Sheehan years ago.


2 issues spring to mind:

 

1. Magic water...look it up, his journalistic cred shredded BUT, even better,

 

2. His statement about Gallipoli (one ANZAC day opinion piece) that,".. in the end, not a single life was wasted."....I took him up on that and emailed him only to receive a stinging response (now lost in the archives). Not a single life? Wow..I bet a lot of mothers, sisters, wives, brothers, fathers, uncles etc in Turkey, Australia etc could have a problem with that, especially as it was supposed to be the "war to end all wars" but turned out to be the war that engendered WWII, the Cold War as well as the War on Terror! (plus a few other "secret wars")

 

Kostas, you're a bit of the collateral damage from point 2.

 

Time to move on.

 

But then again, maybe not, your delusional conspiracy theories clearly give life to what must be otherwise, a fairly meaningless and empty world view.

 

i can only wish the best for you.

 

KB


  • 0

#24 Kostas

Kostas

    Agnostic Greek Australian

  • Members
  • 715 posts

Posted 30 May 2013 - 04:02 PM

But then again, maybe not, your delusional conspiracy theories clearly give life to what must be otherwise, a fairly meaningless and empty world view.

i can only wish the best for you.

KB


Absent any point to refute what I stated, you're merely shooting blanks and trying to back them up with meaningless cliches; somehow leading you to believe that you have a clear world view.
Then again, perhaps there is no clearer than blank.
  • 0
As an Australian of Greek lineage, with who knows... perhaps some Turkish that nobody in my clan has spoken of [wink].. I wish to examine all, and as a lover of free speech (short of inciting harm to others) I expect the right to critique all as freely as anyone.
Just like Socrates.. but keep your hemlock.
My opinions are my own and not necessarily endorsed by anyone.

ps
Any barcode beginning with 729.... is not a perfect way of telling when a product is from Israel, but it is a good rule of thumb.

#25 fatma

fatma
  • Members
  • 4,401 posts

Posted 30 May 2013 - 04:40 PM

you're deranged


  • 0

#26 Kostas

Kostas

    Agnostic Greek Australian

  • Members
  • 715 posts

Posted 30 May 2013 - 05:53 PM


you're deranged


So it's ok if I call you a half whit then.
  • 0
As an Australian of Greek lineage, with who knows... perhaps some Turkish that nobody in my clan has spoken of [wink].. I wish to examine all, and as a lover of free speech (short of inciting harm to others) I expect the right to critique all as freely as anyone.
Just like Socrates.. but keep your hemlock.
My opinions are my own and not necessarily endorsed by anyone.

ps
Any barcode beginning with 729.... is not a perfect way of telling when a product is from Israel, but it is a good rule of thumb.

#27 furry_animal

furry_animal
  • Members
  • 1,069 posts

Posted 30 May 2013 - 08:07 PM

I'd really be interersted to read even a limited critique on the article.

 

KB

 

O-kaaay, getting thread back on track....

 

I will avoid discussion of the issue of "is islam a violent/intolerant etc ideology?"  This is because such a discussion necessarily extends to the behaviour and conduct of Mohammed.  And I would find myself pretty quickly sent to banneds-ville.

 

[Though that does raise the interesting point of why muslims may be sensitive about pointing out certain descriptions and behaviours of Mohammed from their own religious sources, given that they view Mohammed to be a perfect example of conduct? If they believe the latter, there should be no sensitivity, rather only a sense of pride and admiration in all that he has done. But I digress..]

 

I will like to discuss the killing of Lee Rigby, and certain reactions to it such as "it was a betrayal of islam/the actions had no basis in islam" etc etc.  Is this the case?

 

Of crucial importance to this question is the following:  it was not a 'random' killing.  Lee Rigby (and his unit) had fought in Afghanistan.  Thus he was member of a non-muslim army that had invaded muslim lands and killed muslims.  Again, this is crucial to the analysis of the question as to whether killing him had any basis in islam.

 

In fact, up to 10 odd people have been arrested over this killing besides the 2 involved, the others have been charged with conspiracy to murder.  This is because they kept the army base under watch, noting times of the soldiers movements etc, and working out the most opportune time to target and kill a soldier from a unit that they knew had served in Afghanistan.

 

Ironically, some analysts have been using a quote from the Quoran (5:32) to refute the islamic permissability of the killing - ie like here:

 

'Whosoever killeth a human being…” says the Koran, in the 32nd verse of its fifth chapter, “it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.”

http://www.telegraph...-to-terror.html

 

But notice how there is a "..." in that quote, which is masked by the source of the quote being mentioned mid-quote?  That is because there is an "unless" element omitted from the quote above.

 

Quoran 5:32 in full is:

 

"For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth."

 

Quoran 5:33 then explains the consequences for the "unless" bit:

 

"The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom."
 
So what constitutes causing "corruption in the land"?  Well, lots of things.  But as Reliance of the Traveller indicates (and I can't remember where as I have lost my copy of it), being a non-muslim invader of muslim lands who fights against the muslims therein (like Lee Rigby) ranks pretty highly on the list of things that cause "corruption in the lands".
 
I am not going to draw a final conclusion to this point (in part coz I don't have access to RoT at present, so there may be technical issues related to the absence of there being a caliph etc) but just leave it there for others to consider it.

  • 0

#28 Methinks

Methinks
  • Members
  • 417 posts

Posted 31 May 2013 - 12:42 PM

I will like to discuss the killing of Lee Rigby, and certain reactions to it such as "it was a betrayal of islam/the actions had no basis in islam" etc etc.  Is this the case? Of crucial importance to this question is the following:  it was not a 'random' killing.  Lee Rigby (and his unit) had fought in Afghanistan.  Thus he was member of a non-muslim army that had invaded muslim lands and killed muslims.  Again, this is crucial to the analysis of the question as to whether killing him had any basis in islam.

 

Assalamoalaikum

 

If I'm understanding the reasoning offered above, it is being asserted that, in simple terms, the Woolwich murder was permissable under Islam based on what was revealed in the Holy Quran, Ch 5, Surah Al Ma'idah.

 

"On account of this, We prescribed for the children of Israel that whosoever killed a person — unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the land — it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and whoso gave life to one, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind. And Our Messengers came to them with clear Signs, yet even after that, many of them commit excesses in the land.

 

 The reward of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to create disorder in the land is only this that they be slain or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on alternate sides, or they be expelled from the land. That shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a great punishment;

 

Except those who repent before you have them in your power. So know that Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful." - Holy Quran, Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:33-35

 

Let's begin with the first part. When the Quran says, "On account of this", it is referring to the preceding verses which tell the story of Cain killing his brother Abel due to jealousy. Abel's offering to God was accepted due to his righteousness, Cain's was rejected due to him not being righteous.

 

"..whosoever killed a person — unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the land — it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and whoso gave life to one, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind."

 

The reference to killing a person being like killing all mankind and, conversely, giving life to one being like giving life to all mankind follows immediately from the Cain/Abel example. It refers therefore not just to the killing of an individual, but also to what that individual, e.g. Abel stood for in terms of mankind, i.e. a righteous, innocent person. But there is a further meaning which is validated from the next part.

 

"And Our Messengers came to them with clear Signs, yet even after that, many of them commit excesses in the land."

 

Messengers (Prophets) are sent by God as a mercy and source of righteous knowledge. The opposition to them and attempts to

kill them was thus akin to killing what they brought for mankind and to uphold their life was to preserve its benefit for mankind.

 

"..unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the land.."

 

Again, this can only be read with reference to what immediately precedes it, i.e. - " On account of this, We prescribed for the children of Israel". The Israelites (i.e. people of the book preceding Muslims) are who is being referred to as having been given permission to take a life on the basis of life being taken or to stop/punish those who create disorder in society (i.e. treason). The example of Cain and Abel sets the context for God's ruling, i.e. the righteous brother Abel being killed for being righteous, winning the favour of God and refusing to kill his brother Cain in his own defence.

 

"If thou stretch out thy hand against me to kill me, I am not going to stretch out my hand against thee to kill thee. I do fear Allah, the Lord of the universe." Holy Quran, Surah Al-Ma'idah, 5:29

 

So why would God, with reference to the moral example of brothers Cain and Abel, with reference to the prescription for the conduct of Israelites within their community, and with reference to warning Israelites of their obligations to prophets sent, actually (as you assert) be meaning for us to infer from all this that non Muslim invaders of Muslim lands are to be killed, including when they return to their own lands? There is not the slightest reference to such a nonsensical notion anywhere in these verses. And in any case, God is stating that he has prescribed this for the children of Israel, therefore Jews and Christians are addressed along with Muslims, making any fabricated interpretation around Muslim versus non Muslim even more bizarre.

 

"The reward of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to create disorder in the land is only this that they be slain or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on alternate sides, or they be expelled from the land. That shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a great punishment"

 

Again this verse follows directly from the previous, i.e. - "..Our Messengers came to them with clear Signs, yet even after that, many of them commit excesses in the land." So here God is still referring to those to whom the Messenger (Prophet) was sent, but chose to violently oppose (wage war) with and (by extension) with God Himself. As well as this violent opposition, "create disorder", i.e. a dual crime including treachery. In laying out the consequences, a range of options is given including execution, but also mentioned is expulsion from the land, cutting off of hands and feet on alternate sides and crucifixion, all punishments particular to that period of time and to the people referred to in the earlier verse, i.e. the Israelites. Again no mention of invaders, no mention of non Muslims versus Muslims, and absolutely no basis whatsoever for the murder of Lee Rigby.

 

Wasalam

 

 

“What we see depends mainly on what we look for.”
-  John Lubbock
 


  • 0

#29 koalaboi

koalaboi
  • Members
  • 681 posts

Posted 31 May 2013 - 08:23 PM

Thanks Methinks and furry_animal...

 

Good to see this part of the forum happening.

 

KB


  • 0

#30 furry_animal

furry_animal
  • Members
  • 1,069 posts

Posted 01 June 2013 - 12:50 AM

Assalamoalaikum

 

If I'm understanding the reasoning offered above, it is being asserted that, in simple terms, the Woolwich murder was permissable under Islam based on what was revealed in the Holy Quran, Ch 5, Surah Al Ma'idah.

 

"On account of this, We prescribed for the children of Israel that whosoever killed a person — unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the land — it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and whoso gave life to one, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind. And Our Messengers came to them with clear Signs, yet even after that, many of them commit excesses in the land.

 

 The reward of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to create disorder in the land is only this that they be slain or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on alternate sides, or they be expelled from the land. That shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a great punishment;

 

Except those who repent before you have them in your power. So know that Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful." - Holy Quran, Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:33-35

 

Let's begin with the first part. When the Quran says, "On account of this", it is referring to the preceding verses which tell the story of Cain killing his brother Abel due to jealousy. Abel's offering to God was accepted due to his righteousness, Cain's was rejected due to him not being righteous.

 

"..whosoever killed a person — unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the land — it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and whoso gave life to one, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind."

 

The reference to killing a person being like killing all mankind and, conversely, giving life to one being like giving life to all mankind follows immediately from the Cain/Abel example. It refers therefore not just to the killing of an individual, but also to what that individual, e.g. Abel stood for in terms of mankind, i.e. a righteous, innocent person. But there is a further meaning which is validated from the next part.

 

"And Our Messengers came to them with clear Signs, yet even after that, many of them commit excesses in the land."

 

Messengers (Prophets) are sent by God as a mercy and source of righteous knowledge. The opposition to them and attempts to

kill them was thus akin to killing what they brought for mankind and to uphold their life was to preserve its benefit for mankind.

 

"..unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the land.."

 

Again, this can only be read with reference to what immediately precedes it, i.e. - " On account of this, We prescribed for the children of Israel". The Israelites (i.e. people of the book preceding Muslims) are who is being referred to as having been given permission to take a life on the basis of life being taken or to stop/punish those who create disorder in society (i.e. treason). The example of Cain and Abel sets the context for God's ruling, i.e. the righteous brother Abel being killed for being righteous, winning the favour of God and refusing to kill his brother Cain in his own defence.

 

"If thou stretch out thy hand against me to kill me, I am not going to stretch out my hand against thee to kill thee. I do fear Allah, the Lord of the universe." Holy Quran, Surah Al-Ma'idah, 5:29

 

So why would God, with reference to the moral example of brothers Cain and Abel, with reference to the prescription for the conduct of Israelites within their community, and with reference to warning Israelites of their obligations to prophets sent, actually (as you assert) be meaning for us to infer from all this that non Muslim invaders of Muslim lands are to be killed, including when they return to their own lands? There is not the slightest reference to such a nonsensical notion anywhere in these verses. And in any case, God is stating that he has prescribed this for the children of Israel, therefore Jews and Christians are addressed along with Muslims, making any fabricated interpretation around Muslim versus non Muslim even more bizarre.

 

"The reward of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to create disorder in the land is only this that they be slain or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on alternate sides, or they be expelled from the land. That shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a great punishment"

 

Again this verse follows directly from the previous, i.e. - "..Our Messengers came to them with clear Signs, yet even after that, many of them commit excesses in the land." So here God is still referring to those to whom the Messenger (Prophet) was sent, but chose to violently oppose (wage war) with and (by extension) with God Himself. As well as this violent opposition, "create disorder", i.e. a dual crime including treachery. In laying out the consequences, a range of options is given including execution, but also mentioned is expulsion from the land, cutting off of hands and feet on alternate sides and crucifixion, all punishments particular to that period of time and to the people referred to in the earlier verse, i.e. the Israelites. Again no mention of invaders, no mention of non Muslims versus Muslims, and absolutely no basis whatsoever for the murder of Lee Rigby.

 

Wasalam

 

 

“What we see depends mainly on what we look for.”
-  John Lubbock
 

 

Interesting, many interesting points there Methinks.

 

I note you state this (my bolding):

 

"The Israelites (i.e. people of the book preceding Muslims) are who is being referred to..."

 

This is with reference to Q 5:32, which discusses the notion of whoever kills someone kills all humanity/unless they caused corruption in the land etc etc.

 

Therefore, by your reasoning, you would disagree with muslims who cite this same verse as evidence that muslims (in the current day) are dissuaded from killing by virtue of the fact that whosoever kills someone, kills all humanity?  

 

Like here (or any number of multitude of places one could quote) :

 

http://www.smh.com.a...0527-2n6l3.html

 

"Sheehan mixes acts of terrorism, revenge and sectarianism. There is nothing Islamic about those acts. The Koran says: "One who kills a person is as if he has killed mankind entirely."

 


  • 0



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users