Islamic Teachings
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-12-2013, 10:37 PM
RE: Islamic Teachings
(28-12-2013 07:57 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Your reaction to my question is exactly the same as the British Muslim debating Dawkins here. Notice everyone how forthcoming Nineteen is in discussing Islam's rules for how to deal with apostasy. She is just as dishonest in her response as if she were lying by evading the point entirely. She knows how immoral the Islamic teachings on apostasy are, so she wants to talk about anything else than that. It took Dawkins multiple times to get the guy to answer that the penalty for apostasy is death:

Um it might be useful to look into the meaning of TAQIYYA and KITMAN at this point (Full text SPOILED BELOW):




Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true.

Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."



http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/011-taqiyya.htm


TheReligionofPeace.com
Guide to Understanding Islam



What does the Religion of Peace Teach About...

Lying (Taqiyya and Kitman)



Question: Are Muslims permitted to lie?


Summary Answer:

Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to "smooth over differences."

There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.


The Qur'an:

Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.

Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves."

Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Qur'an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.

Qur'an (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts" The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.

Qur'an (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths"

Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.



From the Hadith:



Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad's men after he "guaranteed" them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).



Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.



Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an "enemy."



Muslim (32:6303) - "...he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."



Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.



From Islamic Law:



Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression...



"One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.






Additional Notes:


Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:



Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true.

Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."




Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.



Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.



At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, belying the probability that they were mostly unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).



Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe. The fate of the Jadhima is tragic evidence for this. When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others were convinced that they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).



Today's Muslims often try to justify Muhammad's murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.



Leaders in the Arab world routinely say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic. Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.



The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of 'hypocrisy.'



The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is "a bomb on board" but that everyone will "be safe" as long as "their demands are met." Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to "slay and be slain for the cause of Allah" (as the Qur'an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.



The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it "has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization." In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas. At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.



Prior to engineering several deadly terror plots, such as the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was regularly sought out by NPR, PBS and even government leaders to expound on the peaceful nature of Islam.



The near absence of Qur'anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty. In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that many Muslims are quite honest. When lying is addressed in the Qur'an, it is nearly always in reference to the "lies against Allah" - referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad's claim to being a prophet.



Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran's nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.



It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
28-12-2013, 11:33 PM
RE: Islamic Teachings
(28-12-2013 10:25 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Instead of giving us what your book does teach (and many of us have read it) why not give us (in bite-sized chunks), the parts (specifics) that your revisionist view has rejected and why?

I think the problem with that is you presuppose that Nineteen (and her ilk) recognise their views of Islam as "revisionist". They don't. Even the people that originate this revisionist propaganda--such as Edip Yüksel which Nineteen is promoting--are confused and discordant about what they are doing.

The fact of what someone like Edip Yüksel is doing that he has inherited a bunch of Enlightenment values and ideals that came to Turkey with Atatürk's reforms. The revisionists like Yüksel then go through the Quran and "re-interpret" (almost) all those parts that are antithetical to Enlightentment thinking and then pretend that their revisionist "re-interpretation" was what the Quran meant from the outset.

The historical truth is that all of the values and ideals that the Islamic revisionists try to inject into the Quran are entirely alien to the Quranic text and to Arab culture generally. Someone like Nineteen who is clueless about Arab history and European history would be oblivious to this smuggling in of European Enlightenment values. Yes, Yüksel's revisionist Quran has had most of the misogyny redacted but the ideas of sexism, universal suffrage and equality of opportunity originated in the European Enlightenment and in the classical liberalism of 18th-Century UK--not from 7th-Century Arab culture. Arab culture remains to this day extremely misogynist.

Ignorant automatons like Nineteen have no hope of asking themselves the questions that are crying out to be asked: Why not just accept the values and ideals of the European Enlightenment in toto? Why try and bend Islam into liberal-humanism when you can just adopt liberal-humanism?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chippy's post
28-12-2013, 11:39 PM
RE: Islamic Teachings
(28-12-2013 05:50 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(28-12-2013 05:27 PM)Dom Wrote:  Thing is, you can't prove anything with verses. Tongue

@Nineteen, click here



Islam is a plague on this world. It offers nothing of value and all those that follow its teachings should be round up and shot.
How to treat a burn? I feel like I'm missing the joke. Lol
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2013, 12:14 AM
RE: Islamic Teachings
(28-12-2013 11:33 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(28-12-2013 10:25 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Instead of giving us what your book does teach (and many of us have read it) why not give us (in bite-sized chunks), the parts (specifics) that your revisionist view has rejected and why?

I think the problem with that is you presuppose ...

No problem. You poke your way... I'll prod my way.

OK, on the wider issue... given that amputating that root cause (the belief that allah is real) is even less likely than amputating the basis for the christian myth(s), what do you think would be 'progress' in the right direction (whatever you consider to be 'right')?

What I witness locally is, as in the west, comfort and security are factors that help to make religion less relevant and more relegated to the bucket of 'tradition'.

I see this also in the attitude of my students who come from Oman, Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc.

Thoughts?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2013, 12:56 AM (This post was last modified: 29-12-2013 01:04 AM by Chippy.)
RE: Islamic Teachings
(29-12-2013 12:14 AM)DLJ Wrote:  what do you think would be 'progress' in the right direction (whatever you consider to be 'right')?

Maintaining the separation of church and state and creating a separation between church and state.

Quote:What I witness locally is, as in the west, comfort and security are factors that help to make religion less relevant and more relegated to the bucket of 'tradition'.

True but it is more than that. The fangs of Christianity were removed by the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment gave Europeans sets of values and ideals that permitted them to evaluate Judaeo-Christian morality. You can see from the "Yahweh is a prick" threads on this forum that people don't even realise they are bringing concepts and values to bear on the issue that originated in 18th-Century Europe. Ideas like human rights seem "natural" only because we have been enculturated with those ideas. But there is nothing "natural" about that idea. If it were "natural" we would have arrived at it much earlier than the 16th-Century.

If you reject all Enlightenment ideas and start with sola scriptura you will end-up with something like the Westboro Baptist Church. Similarly, if you reject all Enlightenment ideas and start with a literalist reading of the Torah and use the Talmud for elucidation--and you are ethnically Jewish of course--you end-up with Ultra-Orthodox Judaism.

Quote:I see this also in the attitude of my students who come from Oman, Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc.

I think your students have absorbed certain values and ideals that are alien to their cultures. Arab culture is undemocratic, patriarchal, has no conception of human rights and does not valorise freedom. And for the record neither does Jewish culture. Arabs and Jews are both semites and they are culturally, linguistically and genetically more similiar than they would each like to admit.

The Enlightenment--and all that it cherishes--is thoroughly European and we should not forget that. The ideology of feminism--for example--emerged only in post-Enlightenment Europe and could only have emerged from post-Enlightenment Europe. European civilisation retained a unique capacity for self-critique despite being debased and misguided by alien Middle-Eastern ideas, namely Judaism and Christianity.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
29-12-2013, 01:22 AM (This post was last modified: 29-12-2013 02:23 AM by λάθε βιώσας.)
RE: Islamic Teachings
(28-12-2013 07:18 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-12-2013 06:59 PM)λάθε βιώσας Wrote:  Christianity hasn't come on my radar like Islam has, you can clearly see atrocities and human rights disasters under Islam's dictatorship.

There are no "historical documents" (from Rome or anywhere else) that meet the standards of historical research. There are a few Roman documents that mention, obliquely, the cult. There is no evidence that he, specifically, was killed. Phlio of Alexandria, and Pilate's secretary were on-site at the time and mention nothing, but mention all kinds of other more mundane occurances. There is no way to sort out Yeshua ben Josef from the other Jesuses. Greeks translating Hebrew texts that were created as "gospels', (thus inherently NON-historical) are not evidence of anything. Paul admitted he cooked up his "revelation" on the basis of his hallucination. Repeated lies, are still lies. The Old Testament is almost all mythology, (much of it proven to be impossible by archaeology), such as Abraham, the patriarchs, Moses, the Exodus, all complete myth, as demonstrated by the Documentary Hypothesis. There is nothing "historically reliable" about any of it. The Hebrews didn't even have a word for "history", and at the time of Tacitus the Romans were arguing what it even meant to write "history".

I don't know... I read it somewhere and seen a show on it after hearing of it in a debate.

I am not willing to dig it up, but if there are adherents floating around you may need to ask some of them, I am just repeating something I heard during a debate with Dawkins and that apologist guy Craig Lane or other.

It is strange too when I went in search of the etymology and the linguistics concerning the very word "archeology" and our modern interpretation of it.

Seems the historicity of the bible is pretty accurate, and the biblical places in the book, modern diggers uncovered alot of them right where the book said they would be... it's a bit eery but it somewhat explains the connection the adherents have to it, in my investigation or questioning of their rationality anyway.

~~~

I googled "historicity of the bible" and got this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history

and just googling "historicity" I get this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

the dead sea scrolls, a gold mine for Judaism uncovered historicity of Jesus in their very scrolls... weird

even the word "history" has etymological and linguistic ties to either the bible or Jesus... weird

His Story

our modern language going from Greek and passing into Latin then to the commoners tongue 'English' gave us many new words, a substantial amount.


it's so hard to shed when it is the very words we use to express ourselves... it's perennial, hard to even think outside of it.


(John 1:14) ???

[Image: ec25156e-63b1-4c54-98cc-e0325deeaf3b_zps3f7864d1.jpg]
Hands Of Dust
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2013, 02:06 AM
RE: Islamic Teachings
So much post and so much garbage , I cant reply all of them , my topic will keep it's purpose . Please dont provoke it . Just use your brain as objective persons (I know its impossible)


Islamic Teachings

17:37 Dont be arrogant

7:185 Dont believe in hadiths , stories , fairy tales , rumors .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2013, 02:15 AM
RE: Islamic Teachings
Do you have any valuable teachings to share that don't exist in earlier religions?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hafnof's post
29-12-2013, 02:19 AM
RE: Islamic Teachings
(29-12-2013 12:56 AM)Chippy Wrote:  ...
The ideology of feminism--for example--
....

Would you agree that the OP looks kinda cute?

Angel

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
29-12-2013, 02:21 AM
RE: Islamic Teachings
(29-12-2013 02:19 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(29-12-2013 12:56 AM)Chippy Wrote:  ...
The ideology of feminism--for example--
....

Would you agree that the OP looks kinda cute?

Angel

I would agree. Cute is an apt description of the woman in the avatar photo.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: