Quran burning: Obama apologizes

VivaStPauli wrote:

Spooony wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Iran are all inhumane for the same "fundamentalist" reasoning, though, so that term is sound and holds it's ground.

Islamic Fundamentalism means diverse political and social movements in Muslim countries of North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia that have as their goal the creation of more Islamically oriented states and societies based on the principles and values of Islam. Nothing to do with inhumane

Yes it does. Fundamentalist Islam, just as fundamentalist Christianity, does place several laws from scripture obove worldly laws that are highly outdated, violate basic human rights, and/or are just morally objectable.

Name me one islamist fundamentalist movement in power that doesn't violate the human rights charta.

Well, it is not "inhumane" to them. They are merely carrying out "God's will". They could care less about the western world's rational morality.

I don't care about hemispheric interpretations of what's "humane", Human rights are inalienable, every human being has them, and there can be no exception to this rule.

That's why regimes that carry out the death penalty are inhumane, as are those that don't give their citizens equal rights regardless of birth, iE race, sex, religious or sexual orientation.

VivaStPauli wrote:I don't care about hemispheric interpretations of what's "humane", Human rights are inalienable, every human being has them, and there can be no exception to this rule.

That's why regimes that carry out the death penalty are inhumane, as are those that don't give their citizens equal rights regardless of birth, iE race, sex, religious or sexual orientation.

I think the human rights have a long way to go. Even if many of such heinous regimes were to follow them, civilians would still have objections to some of them because of cultural customs.

Circumcision for example, male and female, is to me inhumane and is many places protected by the safe haven of traditions and cultural practices. In my opinion, male circumcision is fine if there is a purely medical reason to do so and if not, then it should first be done after the child has reached consent. Anything else I consider mutilation and inhumane.

Unfortunately, a lot of people perform this procedure on infants without thinking much about it.

VivaStPauli wrote:I don't care about hemispheric interpretations of what's "humane", Human rights are inalienable, every human being has them, and there can be no exception to this rule.

That's why regimes that carry out the death penalty are inhumane, as are those that don't give their citizens equal rights regardless of birth, iE race, sex, religious or sexual orientation.

Ill be back :-)

VivaStPauli wrote:I don't care about hemispheric interpretations of what's "humane", Human rights are inalienable, every human being has them, and there can be no exception to this rule.

That's why regimes that carry out the death penalty are inhumane, as are those that don't give their citizens equal rights regardless of birth, iE race, sex, religious or sexual orientation.

Can you please explain to me what is your beef with the death penalty?

VivaStPauli wrote:

Spooony wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Iran are all inhumane for the same "fundamentalist" reasoning, though, so that term is sound and holds it's ground.

Islamic Fundamentalism means diverse political and social movements in Muslim countries of North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia that have as their goal the creation of more Islamically oriented states and societies based on the principles and values of Islam. Nothing to do with inhumane

Yes it does. Fundamentalist Islam, just as fundamentalist Christianity, does place several laws from scripture obove worldly laws that are highly outdated, violate basic human rights, and/or are just morally objectable.

Name me one islamist fundamentalist movement in power that doesn't violate the human rights charta.

Do you understand that everything in Islam has two meanings? The Muslim viewpoint and the Kafir viewpoint? I only talk about Islam from the Kafir point-of-view.

Do you have any familiarity with the Koran, Mohammed or Sharia?

From the English language translation of the Saudi-published Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur’an in the English Language, one can read “Appendix III -- The Call to Jihad -- (Holy Fighting for Allah in the Qur’an Statement),” written by Saudi Arabia’s Chief Justice, and learn that jihad -- holy fighting in Allah’s Cause -- is a requirement of Islam:

The Verses of the Qur'an and the Sunnah (the Prophet's legal ways, orders) exhort Muslims greatly to take part in Jihad and have made quite clear its rewards, and praised greatly those who perform Jihad (the holy fighting in Allah's Cause) and explained to them various kinds of honours which they will receive from their Lord (Allah). This is because they - Mujahidin are Allah's troops. Allah will establish His religion (Islam), through them (Mujahidin). He will repel the might of His enemies, and through them He will protect Islam and guard the religion safely. And it is they (Mujahidin) who fight against the enemies of Allah in order that the worship should be all for Allah (Alone and not for any other deity) and that the Word of Allah (i.e. none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and His religion Islam) should be superior.

Then, from a translated 2005-2006 school-year edition of the 12th grade Saudi school textbook (already sanitized due to U.S. State Department pressure), one finds the requirements of jihad:

• Scholars have noted that jihad is obligatory for the individual in three cases:

o (2) If the infidels attack a specific country, it is obligatory for its people to fight them and repel them. Self-defense is a duty. Allah said, "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors."

• When is battle jihad in the path of Allah?

o To fulfill an order from God, sacrifice in His path, spread the creed of monotheism, defend the realms of Islam and Muslims, and raise up the Word of Allah. This is jihad in the path of God.

• Jihad continues until the Day of Resurrection

o It is part of God's wisdom that he made the clash between truth and falsehood continue until the Day of Resurrection. As long as this clash endures, jihad continues. It is not limited to a specific time. As long as there is falsehood, error, and unbelief, the jihad continues.

The three items enumerated above lay the foundation for “extremist” claims. Because the last examples are Saudi, it is appropriate to corroborate those statements with an accepted mainstream text of Islamic law that is neither Saudi nor Wahhabi.

Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Text of Islamic Law, translated by Nu Hah Mim Keller, confirms the personal obligation to fight jihad when non-Muslim forces enter Muslim lands:

Jihad is also personally obligatory for everyone able to perform it, male or female, old or young when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means.

The requirement to fight jihad when non-Muslim forces enter Muslim lands is understood as a requirement of Islamic law. So how does one explain the prevailing assumption that Islam does not stand for such violence undertaken in its name with the fact that its laws and education materials validate the very acts undertaken by “extremists” in Iraq? In fact, the first “radicalizing” lesson that Saudi youth receive that motivates them to travel to Iraq and fight Coalition forces does not come from “extremists” groups like al-Qaeda, but rather is taught as part of Saudi Arabia’s standard secondary school curriculum!

If you are willing to do some math that is no harder than counting how many apples you have in your shopping cart, you can measure the core of Islamic political doctrine found in Mohammed’s biography, the Sira, a sacred text. What is surprising is that once you have a measure (metric) for Mohammed, you also have a measurement of your dhimmitude. It is an ugly and disgusting result.

Tolerance assumes equality between the persons, parties or groups. None of these criteria are met with any negotiations between Muslims and Kafirs. Islam has no compromises to make. Islam is perfect and has nothing to learn or adopt from Kafir civilization. The Islamic positions are perfect because they are based upon the Sunna of Mohammed. A compromise with Kafirs is a compromise with evil and ignorance.

I like to know what is the basis of your opinion? What is your authority? And I do not compare Christianity with Islam. If you want to do that you pick out any person from Islam and I will pick out any person from Christianity then we can compare the two. I know you will pick Muhammad of course so I will pick Jesus.

Now lets play. Tell me Muhammads biography like written in the Sira. Use the Ishaq’s Sira its the oldest and the most the most authoritative. The Sira is not only a biography, but also a sacred text that contains the model for the perfect Islamic life. Again and again the Koran directs every Muslim to imitate Mohammed’s every word and deed. The Sira contains Islam’s grand political strategy. But you would know that. You have read the Trilogy haven't you?

who the heck teaches you all this Bullshit ?

RealGunner wrote:who the heck teaches you all this Bullshit ?

He is an israeli, they are taught this from a young age.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

RealGunner wrote:who the heck teaches you all this Bullshit ?

He is an israeli, they are taught this from a young age.

Israel.

What the hell is Spoony even talking about? I'm challenging his understanding of the well-defined term of "fundamentalism" and what I get in reply is an erratic novel he wrote about the magical interpretations of scripture they are?

I was arguing politics, not theology. When someone is a fundamentalist, it's pretty much a moot point what he or she believes in, it's much more interesting how he or she believes in, and what conclusions are drawn from that point onward.

It's not like it's too hard to look at the term "fundamentalist", then look at the Turkish Kemalites, then look at the Iranian leadership, nod, and say "I understand the difference now, thank you for your enlightenment."

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

RealGunner wrote:who the heck teaches you all this Bullshit ?

He is an israeli, they are taught this from a young age.

No I am a kafir and based my opinion purely on the Koran and Sunna which I have read.

Have you ever read the Koran in chronological order? You are stating someones opinion about Islam. I base my opinions on the trilogy. That is the Koran, Sira and Hadith. That is Muhammad. What Mohammed does and says is so important that Islam has a word for it: Sunna.

If its in those sacred texts its Islam. I was not brought up to hate anything because in my sacred texts there is nothing that states to hate those who not believe. Nor did our profits killed everyone who did not believe in him. Nor is my sacred text a law in my country. That profit is what people from Islam strive to be. That is the law in Islamic countries. Go read Reliance of a Traveller. Its Sharia law text and its the most and authoritative and certified as accurate by 5 of the best Islamic scholars in the world.

Islam is not a religion its a civilization. Do you know is the difference between religious Islam and political Islam? Do you remember when some Danish artists drew some cartoons of Mohammed? There were weeks of rioting, threats, lawsuits, killings, assassinations and destruction by Muslims. If Muslims want to respect Mohammed by never criticizing, joking about him and taking every word he said as a sacred example--that is religious. But when they threaten, pressure and hurt non-Muslims for not respecting Mohammed, that is political. When Muslims say that Mohammed is the prophet of the only god, that is religious, but when they insist that non-Muslims never disrespect Mohammed, that is political. When the newspapers and TV agreed not to publish the cartoons, that was a political response, not a religious response. Show me one picture of Muhammad that people made fun off like they do with other religious books. I can assure you you will find none. If there is they would haver gotten death threats etc etc. That is political not religious.

Again my point of view is from a kafirs point of view. Go read the Sunna and comeback and continue this discussion. Otherwise all you can do is base your opinions on other people perceptions. Go read the Koran and Sunna yourself like I did

VivaStPauli wrote:What the hell is Spoony even talking about? I'm challenging his understanding of the well-defined term of "fundamentalism" and what I get in reply is an erratic novel he wrote about the magical interpretations of scripture they are?

I was arguing politics, not theology. When someone is a fundamentalist, it's pretty much a moot point what he or she believes in, it's much more interesting how he or she believes in, and what conclusions are drawn from that point onward.

It's not like it's too hard to look at the term "fundamentalist", then look at the Turkish Kemalites, then look at the Iranian leadership, nod, and say "I understand the difference now, thank you for your enlightenment."

A fundementalist is a good muslim. He is following Sharia law thats all. If its in the Koran and Sunna it is Islam. He strive to live a live like Muhammad. The Surra tells you what Muhammad did. That is what he strive from. 100 pages of preaching 900 pages of slaughtering unbelievers till there was no one left. That is what they strive. But a person who does not believe in violence example your muslim neighbor. He is a good person good at heart but he is not a good muslim. Because he does not do what is exactly asked of him by Islam. Islam is simple you know Muhammad you know Islam. Thats it. Go read the Sunna and then you will see why. You do not need a muslim to tell you what Islam is. The Koran and Sunna tell us. A fundamentalist is a good muslim. Sharia law is Islamic law. Sharia is the basis for every demand the muslim makes on modern society. A good person I.E your neighbour he does not want to be a good muslim otherwise he would have gone and lived in the middle east under Sharia law. Anyone can try and come to proof to me what I said is a lie. But if they do state opinions that you got from the Koran or Sunna and not some opinion of some expert. They all shape the illusion of the official Islam. The Koran is 14 percent Islam and does not make any sense to a unbeliever. Add the Sunna with it and it reads like the bible makes perfect sense

Does the Sharia law encourage Muslims to kill non-Muslims?

kiranr wrote:
Does the Sharia law encourage Muslims to kill non-Muslims?

Sharia does not devote nearly that much to the Kafir since Sharia law is primarily for Muslims. Besides, the Kafir has few rights, so there is little to expound on.

Here are two Sharia references about Kafirs:
w59.2 […] And this clarifies the Koranic verses and hadiths about hatred for the sake of Allah and love for the sake of Allah, Al Walaa wa al Baraa, being unyielding towards the Kafirs, hard against them, and detesting them, while accepting the destiny of Allah Most High insofar as it is the decree of Allah Mighty and Majestic.

Hatred for the sake of Allah and love for the sake of Allah is called Al Walaa wa al Baraa, a fundamental principle of Islamic ethics and Sharia. A Muslim is to hate what Allah hates and love what Allah loves. Allah hates the Kafir, therefore, a Muslim is to act accordingly.

40:35 They [Kafirs] who dispute the signs [Koran verses] of Allah without
authority having reached them are greatly hated by Allah and the believers [Muslims]. So Allah seals up every arrogant, disdainful heart.
h8.24 It is not permissible to give zakat [charity] to a Kafir, or to someone whom one is obliged to support such as a wife or family member.

Here are a few of the Koran references:
A Kafir can be mocked—
83:34 On that day the faithful will mock the Kafirs, while they sit on bridal couches and watch them. Should not the Kafirs be paid back for what they did?

A Kafir can be beheaded—
47:4 When you encounter the Kafirs on the battlefield, cut off their heads until you have thoroughly defeated them and then take the prisoners and tie them up firmly.

A Kafir can be plotted against—
86:15 They plot and scheme against you [Mohammed], and I plot and scheme against them. Therefore, deal calmly with the Kafirs and leave them alone for a while.

A Kafirr can be terrorized—
8:12 Then your Lord spoke to His angels and said, “I will be with you.
Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into the Kafirs’ hearts, cut
off their heads and even the tips of their fingers!”

A Muslim is not the friend of a Kafir
3:28 Believers should not take Kafirs as friends in preference to other believers. Those who do this will have none of Allah’s protection and will only have themselves as guards. Allah warns you to fear Him for all will return to Him.

A Kafirr is evil—
23:97 And say: Oh my Lord! I seek refuge with You from the suggestions of the evil ones [Kafirs]. And I seek refuge with you, my Lord, from their presence.

A Kafir is disgraced—
37:18 Tell them, “Yes! And you [Kafirs] will be disgraced.”

A Kafir is cursed—
33:60 They [Kafirs] will be cursed, and wherever they are found, they
will be seized and murdered. It was Allah’s same practice with those who
came before them, and you will find no change in Allah’s ways.kafirs and people of the book

The Koran says that the Kafir may be deceived, plotted against, hated, enslaved, mocked, tortured and worse. The word is usually translated as “unbeliever” but this translation is wrong. The word “unbeliever” is logically and emotionally neutral, whereas, Kafir is the most abusive, prejudiced and hateful word in any language. There are many religious names for Kafirs: polytheists, idolaters, People of the Book (Christians and Jews), Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and pagans. Kafir covers them all, because no matter what the religious name is, they can all be treated the same. What Mohammed said and did to polytheists can be done to any other category of Kafir.

Islam devotes a great amount of energy to the Kafir. The majority (64%) of the Koran is devoted to the Kafir, and nearly all of the Sira (81%) deals with Mohammed’s struggle with them. The Hadith ( Traditions) devotes 32% of the text to Kafirs . Overall, the Trilogy devotes 60% of its content
to the Kafir.

I am a kafir. I look at the kafir point of view. Islamic doctrine is dualistic, so there is an opposite view. The believer and unbeliever point of view. Its religion has nothing to do with me just the politics side of it. The politics side of it. Religious Islam is what Muslims do to go to Paradise and avoid Hell. What Mohammed did to Kafirs was not religious, but political. Political Islam is what is of concern to Kafirs, not the religion. Who cares how a Muslim worships, but every one of us is concerned as to what they do to us and say about us.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

RealGunner wrote:who the heck teaches you all this Bullshit ?

He is an israeli, they are taught this from a young age.

Not really. Most of the stuff he posts is just copy-pasted from several websites and is rehashed all over the 'net. This being one of them:
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/sharia-law-for-non-muslims-chapter-5-the-kafir/

For some reason he chooses to omit his sources.

That's not to say that certain religious propaganda is not taught in Israel. Chances are that it is at places. That's the way it is in a most places where people are drowning in religion.

kiranr wrote:
Does the Sharia law encourage Muslims to kill non-Muslims?

Nope

Nowhere near that place
http://www.saint-claire.org/resources/Islamic%20Law%20-%20SHARIA%20AND%20FIQH.pdf

Spooony wrote:

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

RealGunner wrote:who the heck teaches you all this Bullshit ?

He is an israeli, they are taught this from a young age.

No I am a kafir and based my opinion purely on the Koran and Sunna which I have read.

Have you ever read the Koran in chronological order? You are stating someones opinion about Islam. I base my opinions on the trilogy. That is the Koran, Sira and Hadith. That is Muhammad. What Mohammed does and says is so important that Islam has a word for it: Sunna.

If its in those sacred texts its Islam. I was not brought up to hate anything because in my sacred texts there is nothing that states to hate those who not believe. Nor did our profits killed everyone who did not believe in him. Nor is my sacred text a law in my country. That profit is what people from Islam strive to be. That is the law in Islamic countries. Go read Reliance of a Traveller. Its Sharia law text and its the most and authoritative and certified as accurate by 5 of the best Islamic scholars in the world.

Islam is not a religion its a civilization. Do you know is the difference between religious Islam and political Islam? Do you remember when some Danish artists drew some cartoons of Mohammed? There were weeks of rioting, threats, lawsuits, killings, assassinations and destruction by Muslims. If Muslims want to respect Mohammed by never criticizing, joking about him and taking every word he said as a sacred example--that is religious. But when they threaten, pressure and hurt non-Muslims for not respecting Mohammed, that is political. When Muslims say that Mohammed is the prophet of the only god, that is religious, but when they insist that non-Muslims never disrespect Mohammed, that is political. When the newspapers and TV agreed not to publish the cartoons, that was a political response, not a religious response. Show me one picture of Muhammad that people made fun off like they do with other religious books. I can assure you you will find none. If there is they would haver gotten death threats etc etc. That is political not religious.

Again my point of view is from a kafirs point of view. Go read the Sunna and comeback and continue this discussion. Otherwise all you can do is base your opinions on other people perceptions. Go read the Koran and Sunna yourself like I did

You do know all those people who go to these rallies and burning of things are those who are uneducated and have never read or in some cases never seen a Quran, and their only knowledge is what their so-called corrupted Mullah's or leaders have told them....

And from what i have seen in Pakistan, majority of people who come to these rallies are brainwashed muslims....majority who don't have a clue about what it is...are paid or forced to come....or just doing it to get on TV (which i know sounds dumb but it happens)


And things in the Quran have to be put into context just as all other Holy Books need to be.....

During Muhammad's Time, Middle East was full of Barbarian type society, people killing each other, constant wars of Tribes....

Kafir has more then just the non-believer meaning....

In this verse of the Quran, the word ‘Kufr’ is relates to certain events. That is, the cause of war is not the fact of others being “Kafirs”, but rather to their being aggressors. That is to say that this verse means that those of the deniers, who have waged war with you must certainly be fought, but as a matter of defence. The actual meaning of the verse is clear from the next verse of the Quran itself.

At another place, the Quran has this to say: “Fight in God’s cause against those who fight you, but do not overstep the limits.” (2:190) That is, do not be an aggressor, fight only in defence. There are a number of such verses in the Quran, which show that war in Islam is not against Kafirs per se, but against aggressors. If someone is a ‘Kafir’, Muslims have been commanded to communicate to him the message of truth, peacefully, and as a well-wisher, rather than wage a war against him

Similarly, it is also unlawful or haram in Islam to single out some individual or group as unbelievers and then hate them or wage war against them. According to Islam, those who are not Muslims are still human beings. It is the responsibility of Muslims to convey to them the divine message peacefully and affectionately. War in Islam can be waged only against an attacker and nobody else.

And another thing according to Sharia law, all non-muslims are allowed the same rights as muslims if they pay the taxes....and they have their own Courts and don't have to follow Sharia Courts unless asked.

this is Wikipedia

Classical sharia incorporated the religious laws and courts of Christians, Jews and Hindus, as seen in the early Caliphate, Al-Andalus, Indian subcontinent, and the Ottoman Millet system.[213][214] In medieval Islamic societies, the qadi (Islamic judges) usually could not interfere in the matters of non-Muslims unless the parties voluntarily choose to be judged according to Islamic law, thus the dhimmi communities living in Islamic states usually had their own laws independent from the sharia law, such as the Jews who would have their own Halakha courts.[215] These courts did not cover cases involved other religious groups, or capital offences or threats to public order. By the 18th century, however, dhimmis frequently attended the Ottoman Muslim courts, where cases were taken against them by Muslims, or they took cases against Muslims or other dhimmis. Oaths sworn by dhimmis in these courts were tailored to their beliefs.[216]

Non-Muslims were allowed to engage in certain practices (such as the consumption of alcohol and pork) that were usually forbidden by Islamic law. Zoroastrian "self-marriages", that were considered incestuous under sharia, were also tolerated. Ibn Qayyim (1292–1350) opined that non-Muslims were entitled to such practices since they could not be presented to sharia courts and the religious minorities in question held it permissible. This ruling was based on the precedent that the prophet Muhammad did not forbid such self-marriages among Zoroastrians despite coming into contact with Zoroastrians and knowing about this practice.[217] Religious minorities were also free to do whatever they wished in their own homes, provided they did not publicly engage in illicit sexual activity in ways that could threaten public morals.[218]

there is a reason the Ottoman Empire was the one of the largest and longest lasting empire in the world.... because it allowed Religious Laws, Like Sharia, Jewish and Christians all to work with each other