Moderate muslims? (1 Viewer)

[Loudvicuna]

Grand mufti condemning it.http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-18/turnbull-welcomes-statement-from-grand-mufti/6952368

The original statement from Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammed expressed "deepest condolences" at the loss of life but also spoke of "causative factors" such as racism and Islamophobia that should be addressed.

 

[Drsoccerball]

The original statement from Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammed expressed "deepest condolences" at the loss of life but also spoke of "causative factors" such as racism and Islamophobia that should be addressed.

What's wrong with that LOL ? You don't kill a disease by killing each individual cell you find the source of the disease and attack that so no more arise...

 

[Drsoccerball]

Also this may disagree with what the context actually is...

if everything is observed holistically and in its rightful context it is a religion of peace.
Evidence?

Will respond soon.

 

[dan964]

What are you trying to say ahhaha? I won't break of topic though since the topic of discussion is not the trinity but I would like to defend the statement of Muhammad(sas) being called "A pedophile" but however I see no point as no matter what I say they won't be convinced... We can talk about it in PM where we actually look to understand rather than criticise if you like?

Don't bother, if you read closely I am only making an observation about the original allegation by "durrrr" which is probably directed towards Mohammed.

the statement in bold "Even DrSoccerball knows this" was in reference to your comment earlier:

Though I am not Christian I can make a comment that Christians don't literally believe that God engaged in a sexual act even though the word beget is used or can be used.

TO AVOID CONFUSION The quote above is from DrSoccerball not me. I am a Christian this edit is to eliminate confusion

 

[dan964]

The original statement from Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammed expressed "deepest condolences" at the loss of life but also spoke of "causative factors" such as racism and Islamophobia that should be addressed.

What's wrong with that LOL ? You don't kill a disease by killing each individual cell you find the source of the disease and attack that so no more arise...

how on earth, does Islamophobia cause ISIS' attacks? That is the most flawed piece of logic. Yes it is good that he expresses condolences, but making them out to be victims is silly, which may not be his intention.

The issue is that what he attributes it to.

 

[dan964]

Will respond soon.

sure take your time.
In all means, I am curious to why such a direct command is deemed "out of context" if someone acts on it. Even if the context is that war you mentioned, that war/treaty was between the pagan polytheists and the Muslims, suggests it is retaliation towar

Without any bloodshed mind you(and if he did there would of been records of it)..
And if Jews actually believed Ezra to be Son of God there would have been records of it. The reason why your explanation is sufficient for that verse in Surah 9, is also because of the context (immediate) around it, of 9:29-9:32. Yes the context might be these treaty, but it seems to me, also to switch to fighting against unbelievers (i.e. in this case polytheists, Jews & Christians). Those who disbelieved before” were the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians, etc.

"They imitate the sayings of those before them" referring to the polytheists/pagan religions that predated Judaism etc.
"They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him."

http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=9&verse=25
" This is the aim of Jihad with the Jews and the Christians and it is not to force them to become Muslims and adopt the Islamic way of life. They should be forced to pay jizyah in order to put an end to their independence and supremacy so that they should not remain rulers and sovereigns in the land. These powers should be wrested from them by the followers of the true faith, who should assume the sovereignty and lead others towards the right way, while they should become their subjects and pay jizyah. Jizyah is paid by those non-Muslims who live as zimmis (proteges) in an Islamic state, in exchange for the security and protection granted to them by it. This is also symbolical of the fact that they themselves agree to live in it as its subjects. This is the significance of “they pay the tribute out of (their) hand,” that is, “with full consent so that they willingly become the subjects of the believers, who perform the duty of the vicegerents of Allah on the earth.”"

 

[Drsoccerball]

Will respond soon.

Not sure if video is just to attack Islam or to objectively explain it ? It would be alright except the rhetoric tone he makes and the idiotic videos he puts asserts him to be mocking rather than informing objectively. Regardless of that if it was a religion of violence there would be 1000’s of verses mentioning killing people but there is only a few. “But even if one verse says kill the unbelievers that should be sufficient to say it’s a religion of violence” Well to answer this we have to look at context of revelation/circumstances of the time allowing us to contemplate on the reasons that these verses were revealed down. But before I do that lets define what peace means.
Peace- Freedom from disturbance -1st meaning which is the most common one.
Peace- A state or period in which there is no war.
Let’s look at the first definition. If we compare something such as worship in Islam to another religion like Christianity we can see some sort of difference. Some Christians ask God through Jesus (Which I will not talk about since that’s not what the topic is on) but Muslims’ ask God and God only. There is no intermediary “persons” so in that case there’s “Freedom from disturbance.” We start everything with “In the name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful.” To show that we are in fact free from any disturbances whether our boss or this worldly life etc... Also to show that we do things solely or the purpose of pleasing our Creator and Sustainer who thus removes us from any disturbances. Islam teaches us to benefit and serve society rather than disrupt its freedom etc… “There is no compulsion in Islam,” “I have my religion and you have yours.” Furthermore we must donate a percentage of our wealth (1/14) periodically to help out the poor and reduce the gap between the poor and the rich. Which stops society from being disunited and stops disturbance. Islam teaches us to have Kind speech regardless of who you are addressing which stops disturbance as ill speech can cause fights… Commands that you respect your parents which many people know a days do not do “And your Lord has commanded that you serve none but Him, and goodness to your parents. If either or both of them reach old age with you, say not to them (as much as) “UGH” nor childe them, and speak to them a generous word” disrespect to parents can cause societal corruption and thus can cause disturbance in the hearts of parents… Islam teaches us to understand and accept patiently the situations you are in which ultimately frees them of the disturbance. “How amazing is the case of the believer; there is good for him in everything, and this characteristic is exclusively for him alone. If he experiences something pleasant, he is thankful, and that is good for him; and if he comes across some diversity, he is patient, and that is good for him.” I can go on for a very long time talking about how Islam free’s you from disturbance which is also known as peace but time doesn’t permit me at the moment…
I will also later tonight try to answer the next definition busy now 

 

[Drsoccerball]

how on earth, does Islamophobia cause ISIS' attacks? That is the most flawed piece of logic. Yes it is good that he expresses condolences, but making them out to be victims is silly, which may not be his intention.

The issue is that what he attributes it to.

Well its his view on how it arises... people say things like "The prophet was a pedophile and a terrorist" and this enrages people and causes them to fight. I can see his logic and it is true that we need to educate people(including Muslims)

 

[Drsoccerball]

Aisha was probably over 18 at the time of her marriage with the prophet. Probs a miscommunication or corruption of hadiths.

http://www.al-islam.org/articles/concept-polygamy-and-prophets-marriages-sayyid-muhammad-rizvi



Interesting points made by this Mollah on the issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o6sjyuoSUc

I alreadt knew this but never quoted because the authenticity I did not know of...

 

[Drsoccerball]

Now for the second definition... Even though Islam is a peaceful religion according to the first definition we recognise the fact that sometimes war is necessary. This itself if observing the 1st definition can also be defined as peaceful since we are finding freedom from those who attack us. We must in order for us to judge look at context of the 6th century... It was a time where like I said if people didn't have a treaty they would be assumed to be at war. So the notion of the time was "attack them before they attack you" for every single nation. But there are conditions to war. We must not kill innocent people, woman, children, sick/elderly, destroy places of worship, destroy houses, not even touch as much as a tree(in damage), no killing of live stock to damage the society, Do not kill those in places of worship, No one uses fire to kill etc... Also “Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy; pray to God to grant you security; but when you [are forced to] encounter them, exercise patience.” (Sahih Muslim) Which means avoid fighting when possible but if it is absolutely necessary then do it otherwise you will get killed (common sense...)

Now in regards to that verse :http://abuaminaelias.com/on-interpretation-of-verse-929-and-the-battle-of-tabuk/

So since that was a time of warring nations this verse can be practised when at war fighting them. But this is only if they persist to fight (the enemy's) So if we observe the second meaning we technically attempt to stop war whenever possible and accept treaties whenever possible thus making treaties etc... But in order to stop a major amount of deaths (from not fighting) it would technically be more peaceful to fight instead of wait till they kill all your men, woman, children etc...

 

[Drsoccerball]

Don't bother, if you read closely I am only making an observation about the original allegation by "durrrr" which is probably directed towards Mohammed.

the statement in bold "Even DrSoccerball knows this" was in reference to your comment earlier:
Though I am not Christian I can make a comment that Christians don't literally believe that God engaged in a sexual act even though the word beget is used or can be used.

I pmed you about the two definitions of begget.

 

[MilkyCat_]

darkness cannot drive out darkness

 

[Drsoccerball]

darkness cannot drive out darkness

Not really true... If I slap you it will hurt you skin hurt skin ?

 

[dan964]

Agreed.


One's with limited knowledge that don't follow the Quran and Hadith yeah I agree...(context)


Again a group that quotes one verse out of context cannot represent and does not represent the whole religion.


Same thing with the QURAN.

Just like ISIS claims to be Muslims.

That is not what I am addressing I am well aware of that. I hardly think they are the only people to take that verse out of context, and secondly if it is just one verse, it wouldn't be an issue, your statement is very inconsistent if you think through the ramifications. But yes, I was inviting you to make that conclusion yourself that you made.

 

[dan964]

I pmed you about the two definitions of begget.

I responded to that, earlier as well. If you read the comment that you had originally responded to.

 

[dan964]

Well its his view on how it arises... people say things like "The prophet was a pedophile and a terrorist" and this enrages people and causes them to fight. I can see his logic and it is true that we need to educate people(including Muslims)

Hardly would think that would be a motivation. Maybe for lone-rangers. But certainly not for large terrorist groups, that have mixed religious/political agendas.

 

[Drsoccerball]

That is not what I am addressing I am well aware of that. I hardly think they are the only people to take that verse out of context, and secondly if it is just one verse, it wouldn't be an issue, your statement is very inconsistent if you think through the ramifications. But yes, I was inviting you to make that conclusion yourself that you made.

But its nothing when compared to the total verses and just because there's more than one verse doesn't change anything... Even if the whole book was about war if the context it was made was for war it is preposterous to quote this in a non war zone and use it to kill people.

 

[dan964]

Not sure if video is just to attack Islam or to objectively explain it ? It would be alright except the rhetoric tone he makes and the idiotic videos he puts asserts him to be mocking rather than informing objectively. Regardless of that if it was a religion of violence there would be 1000’s of verses mentioning killing people but there is only a few. “But even if one verse says kill the unbelievers that should be sufficient to say it’s a religion of violence” Well to answer this we have to look at context of revelation/circumstances of the time allowing us to contemplate on the reasons that these verses were revealed down. But before I do that lets define what peace means.
Peace- Freedom from disturbance -1st meaning which is the most common one.
Peace- A state or period in which there is no war.
Let’s look at the first definition. If we compare something such as worship in Islam to another religion like Christianity we can see some sort of difference. Some Christians ask God through Jesus (Which I will not talk about since that’s not what the topic is on) but Muslims’ ask God and God only. There is no intermediary “persons” so in that case there’s “Freedom from disturbance.” We start everything with “In the name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful.” To show that we are in fact free from any disturbances whether our boss or this worldly life etc... Also to show that we do things solely or the purpose of pleasing our Creator and Sustainer who thus removes us from any disturbances. Islam teaches us to benefit and serve society rather than disrupt its freedom etc… “There is no compulsion in Islam,” “I have my religion and you have yours.” Furthermore we must donate a percentage of our wealth (1/14) periodically to help out the poor and reduce the gap between the poor and the rich. Which stops society from being disunited and stops disturbance. Islam teaches us to have Kind speech regardless of who you are addressing which stops disturbance as ill speech can cause fights… Commands that you respect your parents which many people know a days do not do “And your Lord has commanded that you serve none but Him, and goodness to your parents. If either or both of them reach old age with you, say not to them (as much as) “UGH” nor childe them, and speak to them a generous word” disrespect to parents can cause societal corruption and thus can cause disturbance in the hearts of parents… Islam teaches us to understand and accept patiently the situations you are in which ultimately frees them of the disturbance. “How amazing is the case of the believer; there is good for him in everything, and this characteristic is exclusively for him alone. If he experiences something pleasant, he is thankful, and that is good for him; and if he comes across some diversity, he is patient, and that is good for him.” I can go on for a very long time talking about how Islam free’s you from disturbance which is also known as peace but time doesn’t permit me at the moment…
I will also later tonight try to answer the next definition busy now 

====
" Most Christians ask the Father through Jesus", with the exception of some Catholics, who ask via a priest/Mary but that is a whole different minefield there. The reason for this is through Jesus, and this ties in with salvation/redemption which Jesus does; i.e. save people from sins; giving us access to God the Father. (Italics add for technicality reasons)

There is no intermediary “persons” so in that case there’s “Freedom from disturbance.” - this statement is incoherent to me, sorry. Hardly a disturbance for someone like me to pray to the Father through Jesus, my saviour (and king may I add). Hardly a disturbance.

" This is the aim of Jihad with the Jews and the Christians and it is not to force them to become Muslims and adopt the Islamic way of life. They should be forced to pay jizyah in order to put an end to their independence and supremacy so that they should not remain rulers and sovereigns in the land. These powers should be wrested from them by the followers of the true faith, who should assume the sovereignty and lead others towards the right way, while they should become their subjects and pay jizyah. Jizyah is paid by those non-Muslims who live as zimmis (proteges) in an Islamic state, in exchange for the security and protection granted to them by it. This is also symbolical of the fact that they themselves agree to live in it as its subjects. This is the significance of “they pay the tribute out of (their) hand,” that is, “with full consent so that they willingly become the subjects of the believers, who perform the duty of the vicegerents of Allah on the earth.”"

"Regardless of that if it was a religion of violence there would be 1000’s of verses mentioning killing people but there is only a few. "
I am sure people can find a list, it isn't hard. There are comparative more; yes they can be taken out of context.

I also wonder what you think of Surah 5:32-33?

 

[dan964]

But its nothing when compared to the total verses and just because there's more than one verse doesn't change anything... Even if the whole book was about war if the context it was made was for war it is preposterous to quote this in a non war zone and use it to kill people.

(1) Then part of the Quran is irrelevant. But this would tend to suggest it is highly relevant:
http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=9&verse=25
(2) There is a war, regardless; albeit passive in the West; but in the Middle East there is war. You could say there is spiritual war.
Yes Muslims may be peaceful, moderate for the most part; but are they consistent with their book as such? I suspect you would/have said yes.

 

[Drsoccerball]

(1) Then part of the Quran is irrelevant. But this would tend to suggest it is highly relevant:
http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=9&verse=25
(2) There is a war, regardless; albeit passive in the West; but in the Middle East there is war. You could say there is spiritual war.
Yes Muslims may be peaceful, moderate for the most part; but are they consistent with their book as such? I suspect you would/have said yes.

I never said it was irrelevant... It just depends on context... If there was a war to just break out where religion A attacks Islam and there is war declared this verse wouldn't be irrelevant...

Also conditions for war is you can't declare war by yourself you have to be a nation, there has to be two distinct sides eg: Country A and country B otherwise civil war would break out etc... Do any of the wars atm satisfy this?