Another Islamist in the West Kills His Own Child - You BASTARD!

[Mr.Fitnah]

9:28. O you who believe (in Allâh's Oneness and in His Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Verily, the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh, and in the Message of Muhammad SAW) are Najasun (impure)[]. So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (at Makkah) after this year, and if you fear poverty, Allâh will enrich you if He will, out of His Bounty. Surely, Allâh is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

The reference is mostly to those idolaters who defiled the Ka'bah by using it to house their satanic rituals. Idolatry is essentially unclean and has no place in the Ka'bah - idolators are not essentially unclean, but they become defiled when they engage in acts of idolatry.

O you who believe, intoxicants and games of chance and (sacrificing to) stones set up and (dividing by) arrows are only an uncleanness, the devil’s work; so shun it that you may succeed. - 5:90​

None of the four Sunni madhhabs require ablution for coming into contact with kafiruun and mushrikuun.

 

[RadiomanATL]

 

[Coyote]

So predictable. Talk about Muslims strapping bombs to their kids, and this is all you can say without some pathetic deflection to a different subject? Muslims are the only ones who strap bombs to their kids and blow them up TO blow others up.

How fucking pathetic your continued deflection is.

Be a man; face the music.

It amuses me to see you react like this when I dare criticize members of a religion that you approve of. ....

It's sad that despite the logical fallacies of deflection and tu quoque, you still use them.

You still defend logical fallacies.

The subject of the thread is a MUSLIM freak who comitted egregious violence against his own child.

The subject is also honor killings. All those who condone or act in that matter are freaks to western culture. Your pathetic attempt to constrain this topic to Islam and ignore the honor killing aspect seems to say one thing - you hate Muslims and have no interest in the abuse of women if it does not involve Muslims nor do you have any interest in understanding Islam beyond the talking points of hate. Any attempt to put this problem into context by addressing other aspects of the religion that do not condone this, by talking about culture or by talking about how this is a serious problem in many cultures is met by an absolute refusal to discuss.

The sad thing is, this is the sort of ignorant hysteria that led to the relatively inocous imprisoning of Japanese Americans in WW2 and the far more horrific programs against Jews under Hitler. The difference is one of degree and implimentation, but there is little difference in the sentiments driving it.

Those who do not use logic are pathetic.

Yes. They are. Perhaps you can start using it?

Those who cannot face the music of that and who cannot face honest criticism of their religion are pussies. You are a coward on two fronts.

Honest criticism is there, and open to discussion - but yours is far from honest when it stems from the certainty of ignorance.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Honor killing has nothing to do with Islam. The Quran does not condone honor killings and honor killings

There is more to Islam than the Quran.
Islam's "honor" has been defended with murder since early on.

1. March 624: Al-Nadr bin al-Harith

Before Muhammad’s Hijrah (Emigration from Mecca to Medina in 622), he used to sit in the assembly and invite the Meccans to Allah, citing the Quran and warning them of God’s punishment for mocking his prophets. Al-Nadr would then follow him and speak about heroes and kings of Persia, saying, "By God, Muhammad cannot tell a better story than I, and his talk is only of old fables which he has copied as I have." Al-Nadr is referring to legends and opaque histories about Arabs of long ago and possibly to Bible stories about such figures as Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, which Muhammad told, but according to his own inaccurate versions. On other days al-Nadr would interrupt Muhammad until the prophet silenced him. In reply to al-Nadir’s harassment, it is possible (scholars sometimes have difficulties matching up Quranic verses with historical events) that Allah sent down these verses to Muhammad concerning him or certainly other mockers in Mecca, according to the account of Ibn Abbas, Muhammad’s cousin, who is considered a reliable transmitter of traditions:

25:6 Say [Prophet], "It was sent down by Him who knows the secrets of the heavens and earth. He is all forgiving and merciful." (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

83:13 ... [W]hen Our revelations are recited to him, he says, "Ancient fables!" 14 No indeed! Their hearts are encrusted with what they have done. 15 No indeed! On that day they will be screened off from their Lord, 16 they will burn in Hell, 17 and they will be told, "This is what you call a lie." (Haleem)

Muhammad did not take revenge on him—not yet—even though the verses in Sura 83 promise a dismal eternal future for mockers. Muhammad’s revenge was not long coming. It was al-Nadir’s bad fortune to join Mecca’s army, riding north to protect their caravan, which Muhammad attacked at the Battle of Badr in AD 624. The story-telling polytheist was captured, and on Muhammad’s return journey back to Medina, Ali, Muhammad’s son-in-law, at Muhammad’s order, beheaded him, instead of getting some possible ransom money. He was one of two prisoners who were executed and not allowed to be ransomed by their clans—all because they wrote poems and told stories critiquing Muhammad.

Source: Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, trans. A. Guillaume, (Oxford UP, 1955, 2004), pp. 136 (Arabic pages 191-92); 163 / 236; 181 / 262; 308 / 458. Reputable historians today consider Ibn Ishaq to be a good source of early Islam, though they may disagree on his chronology and miraculous elements.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Honor killing has nothing to do with Islam. The Quran does not condone honor killings and honor killings

There is more to Islam than the Quran.
Islam's "honor" has been defended with murder since early on.
2. March 624: Uqba bin Abu Muayt

A similar story as that of al-Nadir can be told about Uqba. He too harassed and mocked Muhammad in Mecca and wrote derogatory verses about him. He too was captured during the Battle of Badr, and Muhammad ordered him to be executed. "But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?" Uqba cried with anguish. "Hell," retorted the prophet coldly. Then the sword of one of his followers cut through Uqba’s neck.

Source: Bukhari, vol. 4, no. 2934; Muslim, vol. 3, nos. 4422, 4424; Ibn Ishaq, p. 308 / 458. Bukhari and Muslim are reliable collectors and editors of the hadith (words and deeds of Muhammad outside of the Quran). These three passages from the hadith depict Muhammad calling on Allah for revenge on this poet.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Honor killing has nothing to do with Islam. The Quran does not condone honor killings and honor killings

There is more to Islam than the Quran.
Islam's "honor" has been defended with murder since early on.

3. March 624: Asma bint Marwan

Asma was a poetess who belonged to a tribe of Medinan pagans, and whose husband was named Yazid b. Zayd. She composed a poem blaming the Medinan pagans for obeying a stranger (Muhammad) and for not taking the initiative to attack him by surprise. When the Allah-inspired prophet heard what she had said, he asked, "Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?" A member of her husband’s tribe volunteered and crept into her house that night. She had five children, and the youngest was sleeping at her breast. The assassin gently removed the child, drew his sword, and plunged it into her, killing her in her sleep.

The following morning, the assassin defied anyone to take revenge. No one took him up on his challenge, not even her husband. In fact, Islam became powerful among his tribe. Previously, some members who had kept their conversion secret now became Muslims openly, "because they saw the power of Islam," conjectures Ibn Ishaq.

Source: Ibn Ishaq, pp. 675-76 / 995-96.

 

[Kalam]

It's sad that despite the logical fallacies of deflection and tu quoque, you still use them.

You still defend logical fallacies.

I'm not entirely sure what you want me to do when it comes to addressing the issue of violence within Islam, nor do I really care. I have condemned it here and worked on my own to suppress it. What's interesting is that you accuse me of deflection when I've already addressed the issue at hand and it's now you who is attempting to deflect criticism of Christians. If you have a specific criticism of Islam or Muslims that you'd like for 5me to address directly, please feel free to post it here.

The subject of the thread is a MUSLIM freak who comitted egregious violence against his own child.

The man's religion wasn't actually specified, and the crime, according to the OP's own article, was culturally motivated. A contingent of posters here -- and that seemingly includes you -- will waste no opportunity to criticize Islam and Muslims... even if that criticism is irrelevant to what actually took place.

Those who do not use logic are pathetic.

You're a paragon of rationality, I'm sure. Riddle me this, Aristotle: when did it become logical to equate a religion to one of the thousands of cultures of its adherents?

Those who cannot face the music of that and who cannot face honest criticism of their religion are pussies.

This is what I spend most of my time here doing. Well, most of the criticism isn't "honest," but you get the idea.

You are a coward on two fronts.

I'm willing to answer any questions about Islam or Muslims you may have, SM. What I'm not willing to do is become a Muslim who posts falsehoods about his own religion for the sake of ingratiating himself with prejudiced non-Muslims.

 

[Si modo]

It's sad that despite the logical fallacies of deflection and tu quoque, you still use them.

You still defend logical fallacies.

I'm not entirely sure what you want me to do when it comes to addressing the issue of violence within Islam, nor do I really care. I have condemned it here and worked on my own to suppress it. What's interesting is that you accuse me of deflection when I've already addressed the issue at hand and it's now you who is attempting to deflect criticism of Christians. If you have a specific criticism of Islam or Muslims that you'd like for 5me to address directly, please feel free to post it here.

The subject of the thread is a MUSLIM freak who comitted egregious violence against his own child.

The man's religion wasn't actually specified, and the crime, according to the OP's own article, was culturally motivated. A contingent of posters here -- and that seemingly includes you -- will waste no opportunity to criticize Islam and Muslims... even if that criticism is irrelevant to what actually took place.


You're a paragon of rationality, I'm sure. Riddle me this, Aristotle: when did it become logical to equate a religion to one of the thousands of cultures of its adherents?

Those who cannot face the music of that and who cannot face honest criticism of their religion are pussies.

This is what I spend most of my time here doing. Well, most of the criticism isn't "honest," but you get the idea.

You are a coward on two fronts.

I'm willing to answer any questions about Islam or Muslims you may have, SM. What I'm not willing to do is become a Muslim who posts falsehoods about his own religion for the sake of ingratiating himself with prejudiced non-Muslims.

I've seen no condemnation of this act at all from you. I've seen condenmation of off-topic acts by others that you (and others) illogically bring up, but you cannot condemn this.

It's amazing.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I'm willing to answer any questions about Islam or Muslims you may have,.

Is your interpretation of the Quran widely held or considered traditional?

 

[Kalam]

You're making this too easy. For your sake, we will ignore the fact that Ibn Ishaq's accounts are unreliable and assume for the purposes of this discussion that the passages you posted are 100% accurate. You are welcome.

Al-Nadr... join[ed] Mecca’s army, riding north to protect their caravan, which Muhammad attacked at the Battle of Badr in AD 624.

Al-Nadr joined the army of the idolatrous oppressors. He was an enemy combatant; his death was entirely justified. Notice that Muhammad (SAWS) did not kill him when he mocked Islam, he was killed after he took up arms with the enemies of Islam.

A similar story as that of al-Nadir can be told about Uqba. He too harassed and mocked Muhammad in Mecca and wrote derogatory verses about him. He too was captured during the Battle of Badr,

You post an account of slaying an enemy combatant again as if this is murder. If you willingly take up arms with those whose unambiguous intention is to destroy Islam, your life is forfeit to the Muslims you were willing to kill.

Asma was a poetess who belonged to a tribe of Medinan pagans, and whose husband was named Yazid b. Zayd. She composed a poem blaming the Medinan pagans for obeying a stranger (Muhammad) and for not taking the initiative to attack him by surprise.

You post an account of a woman who openly encouraged the assassination of Muhammad (SAWS). In addition to this being a crime in and of itself, her call for assassination took place at a time when Islam was a fledgling religion that faced the threat of destruction. Try to find a reliable account of somebody being assassinated per Muhammad's (SAWS) orders for doing nothing more than criticizing or mocking Islam. The punishment for those individuals is not earthly.

Allah will pay them back their mockery, and He leaves them alone in their inordinacy, blindly wandering on. - 2:15

The life of this world is made to seem fair to those who disbelieve, and they mock those who believe. And those who keep their duty will be above them on the day of Resurrection. And Allah gives to whom He pleases without measure. - 2:212

And indeed He has revealed to you in the Book that when you hear Allah’s messages disbelieved in and mocked at, sit not with them until they enter into some other discourse, for then indeed you would be like them. Surely Allah will gather together the hypocrites and the disbelievers all in hell -- those who wait for you. Then if you have a victory from Allah they say: Were we not with you? And if there is a chance for the disbelievers, they say: Did we not prevail over you and defend you from the believers? So Allah will judge between you on the day of Resurrection. And Allah will by no means give the disbelievers a way against the believers. - 4:140-141
​

 

[Kalam]

I'm willing to answer any questions about Islam or Muslims you may have,.

Is your interpretation of the Quran widely held or considered traditional?

I will respond as much as possible using clear passages which require no interpretation, or I will substantiate my interpretation with other Qur'anic passages, relevant and legitimate ahadith, or the opinions of trustworthy 'ulama.

 

[Si modo]

Can Kalem condemn the subject act or not?

Tune in next century to find out.

 

[Kalam]

I've seen no condemnation of this act at all from you. I've seen condemation of off-topic acts by others from you, but you cannot condemn this.

It's amazing.

Then I will do so again for your sake.

La'anatullah alayhi.

And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell, abiding therein; and Allah is wroth with him and He has cursed him and prepared for him a grievous chastisement. - 4:93​

La'anatullah alayhi - May deprivation of God's (SWT) blessings be upon him. Punish him here, and let him be punished in hell for what he has done unless he repents and makes amends.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I'm willing to answer any questions about Islam or Muslims you may have,.

Is your interpretation of the Quran widely held or considered traditional?

I will respond as much as possible using clear passages which require no interpretation, or I will substantiate my interpretation with other Qur'anic passages, relevant and legitimate ahadith, or the opinions of trustworthy 'ulama.

Im not sure anyone has the stomach for watching you torture the Quran any further.
You failure to accept the established fact of nasik leads you to hold heretical views of Islam.

Why not just cut to the chase and use what the link in your sig leads one to believe.

By the end of the ninth century, Mu'tazilis were subjected to vehement attacks from the right (the traditionalists) and from the left (the atheists, deists, philosophers, non-Muslim thinkers, etc.).

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

You're making this too easy. For your sake, we will ignore the fact that Ibn Ishaq's accounts are unreliable and assume for the purposes of this discussion that the passages you posted are 100% accurate. You are welcome.

Al-Nadr... join[ed] Mecca’s army, riding north to protect their caravan, which Muhammad attacked at the Battle of Badr in AD 624.

Al-Nadr joined the army of the idolatrous oppressors. He was an enemy combatant; his death was entirely justified. Notice that Muhammad (SAWS) did not kill him when he mocked Islam, he was killed after he took up arms with the enemies of Islam.

A similar story as that of al-Nadir can be told about Uqba. He too harassed and mocked Muhammad in Mecca and wrote derogatory verses about him. He too was captured during the Battle of Badr,

You post an account of slaying an enemy combatant again as if this is murder. If you willingly take up arms with those whose unambiguous intention is to destroy Islam, your life is forfeit to the Muslims you were willing to kill.

Asma was a poetess who belonged to a tribe of Medinan pagans, and whose husband was named Yazid b. Zayd. She composed a poem blaming the Medinan pagans for obeying a stranger (Muhammad) and for not taking the initiative to attack him by surprise.

You post an account of a woman who openly encouraged the assassination of Muhammad (SAWS). In addition to this being a crime in and of itself, her call for assassination took place at a time when Islam was a fledgling religion that faced the threat of destruction. Try to find a reliable account of somebody being assassinated per Muhammad's (SAWS) orders for doing nothing more than criticizing or mocking Islam. The punishment for those individuals is not earthly.

Allah will pay them back their mockery, and He leaves them alone in their inordinacy, blindly wandering on. - 2:15

The life of this world is made to seem fair to those who disbelieve, and they mock those who believe. And those who keep their duty will be above them on the day of Resurrection. And Allah gives to whom He pleases without measure. - 2:212

And indeed He has revealed to you in the Book that when you hear Allah’s messages disbelieved in and mocked at, sit not with them until they enter into some other discourse, for then indeed you would be like them. Surely Allah will gather together the hypocrites and the disbelievers all in hell -- those who wait for you. Then if you have a victory from Allah they say: Were we not with you? And if there is a chance for the disbelievers, they say: Did we not prevail over you and defend you from the believers? So Allah will judge between you on the day of Resurrection. And Allah will by no means give the disbelievers a way against the believers. - 4:140-141
​

Only In Islam and crime syndicates are those who commit crimes against humanity the good guys, and those who object and try to stop them the enemy combatants

 

[Kalam]

Im not sure anyone has the stomach for watching you torture the Quran any further.

You are not qualified to pass judgment on what is or isn't a legitimate interpretation of the Qur'an.

You failure to accept the established fact of nasik leads you to hold heretical views of Islam.

The interpretation of naskh favored by you has been conclusively refuted... again.

Abrogation is a false doctrine

You have tried and shown you cant prove that.

I have shown it to be true on a number of occasions; you cling to falsities because you realize that acknowledging the truth would deprive your hilariously pathetic Islamophobia of a rational basis. I'm sure that you're not even familiar with the development of the theory of internal naskh. As time has passed and knowledge has increased, a progressively fewer number of verses have been regarded as "abrogated." During the Medieval period, for example, varying numbers of passages were thought to be affected by internal abrogation - Imam Jalaluddin Al-Suyuti eventually demonstrated that no more than 21 verses could have been abrogated.

The possibly abrogated verses -- as recognized by Suyuti -- are as follows:

• 2:180 (by 2:181)
• 2:184 (by 2:185)
• 2:183 (by 2:187)
• 2:217 (by 9:36)
• 2:240 (by 2:234)
• 2:284 (by 2:286)
• 3:102 (by 64:16)
• 4:33 (by 8:75)
• 4:8
• 4:15
• 5:2
• 5:42 (by 5:49)
• 5:106 (by 65:2)
• 8:65 (by 8:66)
• 9:41 (by 24:61, 9:91, and 9:122)
• 24:3 (by 24:32)
• 24:58
• 33:52 (by 33:33)
• 58:12 (by 58:13)
• 60:11
• 73:2

Suyuti's discussion of Naskh can be found in full here (for some reason, it's hosted on an Ahmadi website):
http://www.ahmadiyya.org/images_blog/nasikhmansukh.pdf

You will notice that 2:256 (Let there be no compulsion in religion...) and similar passages that I cite were not included by Suyuti in his list of abrogated verses.

What's more, renowned Indian scholar Shah Wahiullah (d. 1762) demonstrated in Al Faudhul Kabir fi Usoolut Tafsir that all but five of Suyuti's verses were unaffected by abrogation. We have now reduced this number to zero, as it's plainly obvious that the passages that supposedly explain internal naskh actually describe a form of naskh that involves the Qur'an taking precedence over previous scriptures. Like Maulana Muhammad Ali, eminent Sunni leader Maulana Maududi confirmed that the references were to the Qur'anic abrogation of Halakha. Excerpted from his tafsir, Tafhim al-Qur'an (regarding 2:106) -

Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?

This is the answer to an objection which the Jews raised to create doubts in the minds of the Muslims. They argued this: "The Qur'an says that the former Scriptures had been sent down by Allah and that it had as well. If this is so, why does the Qur'an give commands that differ from those contained in the former Books? How can the same God give different commands at different times?" Besides, they said, "The Qur'an asserts that the Jews and the Christians have forgotten a part of the teachings sent down to them. How is it possible that the teachings of Allah could be obliterated from memory?" They did not raise these objections for the sake of arriving at the truth, but for the sake of creating mischief. Allah answers their objections thus: "I am the Sovereign and My powers are unlimited. I can repeal any order of Mine or allow it to be forgotten, but I substitute for it something that serves the same purpose better or at least equally well."​

 

[Kalam]

Only In Islam and crime syndicates are those who commit crimes against humanity the good guys, and those who object and try to stop them the enemy combatants

I accept that you are unable to find an example of Muhammad (SAW) ordering the execution of anyone who did not take up arms against Islam or openly threaten it with destruction. Thank you for your concession; this has been a productive discussion.

 

[Si modo]

I've seen no condemnation of this act at all from you. I've seen condemation of off-topic acts by others from you, but you cannot condemn this.

It's amazing.

Then I will do so again for your sake.

La'anatullah alayhi.

And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell, abiding therein; and Allah is wroth with him and He has cursed him and prepared for him a grievous chastisement. - 4:93​

La'anatullah alayhi - May deprivation of God's (SWT) blessings be upon him. Punish him here, and let him be punished in hell for what he has done unless he repents and makes amends.

Quoting a verse from some book is your idea of condemnation? This has to do with killing believers. LMAO! He didn't kill his daughter, he ran her over trying to kill her. And, if the daughter was a non-believer it's all OK? What a pathetic joke you are. That's no condemnation. See if you can have the courage to condemn this.

 

[Kalam]

Quoting a verse from some book is your idea of condemnation?

It may not mean much to you, but a condemnation on religious grounds is very significant to me. Asking that someone be deprived of Allah's (SWT) blessings is not something that I do often or without careful consideration. It's not just some book.

LMAO! And, if the daughter was a non-believer it's all OK?

Of course not. He would deserve punishment here and in the hereafter either way. I'd quote relevant scripture for you, but that doesn't seem to suffice in your mind.

What a joke you are.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm not going to lose sleep over what you think about me.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Im not sure anyone has the stomach for watching you torture the Quran any further.

You are not qualified to pass judgment on what is or isn't a legitimate interpretation of the Qur'an.

Well please imam "kalam"
give your tafsir.( heres a real one)
Explain how besiege and ambush are defensive.
Who pays zakat?
Who preforms as salat.

5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islâmic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikûn (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and give Zakât, then leave their way free. Verily, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful