Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

General Discussion
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : General : General Discussion
Message Icon Topic: The Embassy Attacks Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 11 Next >>
Author Message
honeto
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2425
Quote honeto Replybullet Posted: 22 October 2012 at 3:34pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by honeto

wrong, it will come by controlling those who try to control others, occupy their land to steal and subjugate and enslave like we have seen in the past few centuries.


I'm not sure I understand you, Hasan. Do you approve of people trying to control others, or do you oppose it? Or does it depend on who is doing the controlling, i.e. do you hold others to a different moral standard than yourself?



Ron,
I oppose oppression of anyone by anyone.
Hasan


Edited by honeto - 22 October 2012 at 3:37pm
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"
IP IP Logged
Matt Browne
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2010
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 866
Quote Matt Browne Replybullet Posted: 30 November 2012 at 6:33am
Friendship, in a secular country you have the right to believe that Allah revealed to His messengers an absolute and solid way of peace and enjoyment, and other people have the right not to believe that Allah revealed to His messengers an absolute and solid way of peace and enjoyment. In secular countries different religions and atheism co-exist. The people are in charge, not God. All can vote and the elected representatives create or change laws for the people. There is also a constitution and a 51% majority cannot change it. You need 66% or more. There is division of powers with checks and balances. God and holy texts can inspire Christian and Muslim voters and this gets reflected in the elections.




Edited by Matt Browne - 30 November 2012 at 6:35am
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt
IP IP Logged
Matt Browne
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2010
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 866
Quote Matt Browne Replybullet Posted: 30 November 2012 at 6:46am
Originally posted by honeto

"Every citizen in a modern political system has the right to believe in God or not believe in God."

That is how it was in the Prophet's time. No one was forced to believe him. Those (many) who believed him did so out of their free will,and those (many) who did not believe in him to be the prophet did so out of their free will. He established a system, where each one has the right to choose after the warning from God has reached. He warned of the consequences in the hereafter as we do today to those who reject God.
So, it is not true that the current political system was the first one to give a person to decide for themselves what they wanted to believe. What people do out of their own understanding and actions is another story like with any other belief or system, but the Quran is clear on this matter.

2:256 (Y. Ali) Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

Hasan


Unfortunately, the 'no compulsion in religion' principle often gets overruled in the Quran and Sunnah. Muslims here on Islamicity told me that female Muslims must wear the hijab. I thought Allah gave them a choice. But it goes far beyond this. Right after Muhammad died in 632 CE Muslim apostates were killed in the name of Islam. What followed was Islamic imperialism for more than 800 years. Many of those who believed in the Prophet did not so out of their free will. If Jews and Christians wanted to avoid paying the fine, they had no choice. Polytheists and other nonbelievers had no choice: either convert to Islam or be killed.

In March 2006, the Afghan citizen Abdul Rahman was charged with apostasy and could have faced the death penalty for converting to Christianity. His case attracted much international attention with Western countries condemning Afghanistan for persecuting a convert. Charges against Abdul Rahman were dismissed on technical grounds (insanity) by the Afghan court after intervention by the president Hamid Karzai. He was released and left the country to find refuge in Italy.

So much for making free choices in Islam.



Edited by Matt Browne - 30 November 2012 at 6:48am
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt
IP IP Logged
Friendship
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 24 August 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 869
Quote Friendship Replybullet Posted: 30 November 2012 at 7:57am
Assalamu alaikum. Matt Browne.

Let us start going by specifics. It is the West who introduced banning smoking in public and not any Muslim ruler or scholar. Islam says anything that is harmful to the body is prohibited. It is the West who introduced the law allowing a minimum concentration of alcohol for drivers to have in their body. The time to open bars and parlors have been reduced. I do not know any Muslim country standing on that. Does it mean now that no 1Muslim country could implement it simply it is a Western rule?
In the Torah, no one should delay justice. So when Muhammad came he introduced delaying of war crimes such that when the punishment is passed it does not sound as a lesson to others.
Nakedness- Muhammad gave certain areas of the body to be covered. Who is walking naked despite the apparent nudity in some countries. Whatever you are advocating or calling for rights of individuals was practiced in the time of Muhammad and after his death. Some commanders disobeyed Muhammad on the basis of the prevailing situation. Muhammad would tell them that he did not command them, and that compensation must be given to the injured.
The question of majority to change the constitution is your problem. Look at how women are not given the right of priesthood. All such trivialities are not part of the Shari'a of Muhammad. Look at how psodomy and prostitution is legalized. Islam prohibits them openly, but gives one the right to do whatever he likes secretly. Islam protects the right and interest of the majority. In the manner Moses refused to join those who rebelled against Aaron, Muhammad also disallows one joining those who rebel against him.

Friendship.
  
IP IP Logged
Friendship
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 24 August 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 869
Quote Friendship Replybullet Posted: 30 November 2012 at 8:22am
Assalamu alaikum. Matt Browne

You said: Unfortunately, the 'no compulsion in religion' principle often gets overruled in the Quran and Sunnah.
Response: Let us be wise please! How can Qur'an and the Sunna overrule an injunction in the Qur'an. Let us straighten the wheel please. In other words you are saying that Allah contradicted himself.
You said: Muslims here on Islamicity told me that female Muslims must wear the hijab.
Answer. Please leave that argument alone. I think in one of my posts I explained the position of hijab and the veil. It is better you rely on what I explain rather than relying on what is not the meaning of a verse. The minimum protection given to uphold the dignity of women is for them to wear the veil. This is the meaning. If they feel that they will be dignified by not wearing the veil, they are free. To concur to that Muhammad allowed one to gaze at a woman twice. The fornication through the eyes, ears and sound is forgiven by Allah and not through physical contact.
You said:  Right after Muhammad died in 632 CE Muslim apostates were killed in the name of Islam.
Response: You will never understand this incident. They refused to give the right to protect the welfare of the poor and those non-muslims living under the Islamic State. Those who participated in the battles including non-muslims.
You said:  If Jews and Christians wanted to avoid paying the fine, they had no choice. Polytheists and other nonbelievers had no choice: either convert to Islam or be killed.
Response: There is no iota of truth. Read about the Battle of Emisa. You seem to contradict yourself and what honest sincere Christians wrote on the conquest of the Arabs.
My conclusion is: The West is afraid of giving hand and support in establishing the Caliphate because it is the system that will bring common understand and development to mankind. The West prefers dealing with apostates  milking the innocent ones and indirect profiteering. The wave of protests in Europe is enough indicator that the promise of Allah is real. This He reminds us in Qur'an 16:76; Allah puts  forward (another) example of two men, one of them dumb and has no power over anything, and he is a burden on his master; whichever way he directs him, he brings no good. Is such a man equal to one who commands justice, and is himself on the Straight Path?  

Friend.


In March 2006, the Afghan citizen Abdul Rahman was charged with apostasy and could have faced the death penalty for converting to Christianity. His case attracted much international attention with Western countries condemning Afghanistan for persecuting a convert. Charges against Abdul Rahman were dismissed on technical grounds (insanity) by the Afghan court after intervention by the president Hamid Karzai. He was released and left the country to find refuge in Italy.

So much for making free choices in Islam.


Edited by Friendship - 30 November 2012 at 8:25am
IP IP Logged
schmikbob
Male Agnostic
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 27 June 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 513
Quote schmikbob Replybullet Posted: 30 November 2012 at 9:39am
Friendship, I read your first two specific examples. "It is the West who introduced banning smoking in public and not any Muslim ruler or scholar. Islam says anything that is harmful to the body is prohibited. It is the West who introduced the law allowing a minimum concentration of alcohol for drivers to have in their body."  I think you are confused.  These laws are not to protect the smoker or the driver that drinks.  They are to protect the person subject to second hand smoke and innocents put in danger by an impaired driver.  You can smoke or drink to your hearts content as long as you don't infringe on anyone else's rights (in most cases).
IP IP Logged
Friendship
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 24 August 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 869
Quote Friendship Replybullet Posted: 30 November 2012 at 10:00am
Assalamu alaikum.  schmikbob


I think it is rather you than me. Why do you not listen to what Islam says but distorts reporting and observations?
I was walking in a London street and found someone drunk and lying down. I stopped and called the police. This is part of the Shari'a.
Is it not for the protection of both that limits the level of alcohol in the blood system? One is protected directly and the other indirectly. On who was the research done? There are two or more medical morbidity: heart failure, obesity, cancer of the liver stomach and the lungs. Please retract your statement.

Friendship
IP IP Logged
schmikbob
Male Agnostic
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 27 June 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 513
Quote schmikbob Replybullet Posted: 30 November 2012 at 1:23pm

Friendship, your anecdotal story about finding a drunk is nice.  Not sure what it has to do with Shari'a law.  I wasn't aware that the UK adhered to Shari'a. 

To the point, the laws that limit alcohol and tobacco in the US are not for the benefit of both although they have that effect.  Here we try to limit government's intrusiveness into what is a personal decision.  
 
What research are you referring to?  What should I retract? 
 
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 11 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com