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

[Si modo]

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.

I find those who cannot speak for themselves pathetic indeed. And the verse you provided addresses killing.

You have condemned nothing and your verse doesn't even apply to this.

You aren't man enough to condemn this. Of course, given the way your religion treats women in general, that comes as no surprise to me.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

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.

You may find this entertianing

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/81748-islam-forbids.html

 

[Sunni Man]

I condemn the murder of this girl.

The same as I would any other murder.

Her murder had nothing to do with Islam.

 

[Kalam]

Well please imam "kalam"
give your tafsir.
Explain how besiege and ambush are defense.
Who pays zakat?
Who preforms as salat.

Explain 9:5? Again...?

Very well. The verse in question applies clearly to the idolaters who were either hostile towards Muslims themselves or supported others in their hostility towards Muslims. This distinction is delineated in other parts of the passage.

Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you; so fulfil their agreement to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves those who keep their duty.- 9:4​

The idolaters that are to be attacked are contrasted here with those who held to their agreements with the Muslims and did not support any of the Muslims' enemies, implying that the party referred to in 9:5 was guilty of these transgressions. This is confirmed by other verses in the passage.

How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with his Messenger, except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them. Surely Allah loves those who keep their duty. - 9:7-8​

Muslims are instructed again to respect their agreements with idolaters who have done the same, implying yet again that the guilty party of idolaters failed to do so. This is stated explicitly in 9:10 -

They respect neither ties of relationship nor covenant, in the case of a believer. And these are they who go beyond the limits.​

All of this is confirmed in the following verses, which make it clear that the idolaters referenced were guilty of a number of things, including breaking oaths, attacking Muslims, and attempting to silence and expel the Messenger (SAWS) of God (SWT).

And if they break their oaths after their agreement and revile your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief -- surely their oaths are nothing -- so that they may desist. Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right than you should fear Him, if you are believers. - 9:12-13​

Therefore, it's plainly obvious that interpreting 9:5 as an open call for the destruction of all Mushrikuun requires ignoring the rest of the Qur'an, including the verses that surround it. That is improper.

 

[Si modo]

Then I will do so again for your sake.



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.

You may find this entertianing

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/81748-islam-forbids.html

Thanks. I know. It's the illogical way most justify their barbarism. It's a classic 'begging the question' case - quite circular and involves little to no intellect, obvious to even the most casual observer. Running me over with a car would not be condemnable, for example.

 

[mdn2000]

What is in the Koran is passages dealing with the unclean, which this killing would fall under, you know why the father used his car, because in Islam the holy do not touch the filthy unholy which in the eyes of the father is what this girl became.

The disbelievers and idolaters are unclean in belief and action, yes. So are those who attempt to force their beliefs onto others:

And if thy Lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them. Wilt thou then force men till they are believers? And it is not for any soul to believe except by Allah’s permission. And he casts uncleanness on those who will not understand. - 10:99-100​

Refusing to touch disbelievers because their beliefs are unclean is silly; only Shi'ah Muslims think that disbelievers are najis (ritually impure) by their very nature.

The clean and the unclean, the holy and the unholy, according to the Koran the whole world is thus divided, unbelievers, christians, jews are unclean, unholy. Touching the unholy renders a Moslem impure. Hence the father ran his daughter over with a car.

Have you read it?

O mankind, surely We have created you from a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other. Surely the noblest of you with Allah is the most dutiful of you. Surely Allah is Knowing, Aware. - 49:13

Allah forbids you not respecting those who fight you not for religion, nor drive you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly. Surely Allah loves the doers of justice. - 60:8​

Do you make this up as you go along? There is no "prayer of purification." Ablution, wudu, requires bathing oneself with water and the only things that may be recited are the bismillah and the shahada.

So why have the "islamic experts" not pointed out where Mohammed explicitly speaks of Apotasy,

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: A Bedouin gave the Pledge of allegiance to Allah's Apostle for Islam and the Bedouin got a fever where upon he said to the Prophet "Cancel my Pledge." But the Prophet refused. He came to him (again) saying, "Cancel my Pledge.' But the Prophet refused. Then (the Bedouin) left (Medina). Allah's Apostle said: "Medina is like a pair of bellows: It expels its impurities and brightens and clears its good."

- Sahih Bukhari, Ahkaam (Judgment), no. 316​

The same account is related in numbers 318 and 323 of that book, as well as no. 424 of book 92 ("Holding Fast to the Qur'an and Sunnah.")

simple, those posting know very little of Islam.

Ah, how can I possibly respond to such a post so articulate and accurate. Its actually real easy, the Koran (intentional use of spelling of 1800's) is written in Arabic. Being written in Arabic there are thousands of translations, which translation one uses is of the utmost importance, not all translations or interpetations are the same. So what the hell is Kalem quoting, the Koran or the Hadith, I actually cannot respond quote for quote, passage for passage without knowing which translation or which book.

It dont matter though, what I have written is simple fact.

The Holy and Unholy, the clean and unclean, this point is factual, any translation of the Koran or Hadith, any book on the culture of the Middle East will explain clean and unclean.

For the world of Islam nothing is as unclean as the dead, Moslems do not touch the dead and if they do they must undergo a purification prosess, depending on the sect this can be a ritual that lasts nine days. Touching the unclean is why in the Moslem world someone will be stoned to death, there is no chance of touching the corpse.

Kalem cannot despute my facts without at first determining which sect said father belongs to, was this man Sunni or Shia, was he Wahabbi Sunni. This is of extreme importance yet kalem has not gone into this detail. Still it does not matter, the clean and unclean is common to all sects.

Maybe Kalem should explain that the pure and the unpure fall in two catagories thus there are two processes of purification, great and small.

Touching a corpse, which this man's daughter becomes in the course of murder falls into the catagory of unpure that requires a "great" purification. Depending on the sect of the Islamic religion depends on if the Great Purification is needed. I will not pretend to know the details of the Great Purification but in one sect instead of using water Bull's Urine is used. Is this type of purification still used today, I dont know, did this man read the same book I did and thus beleive if he touched the corpse of the one he murdered and thus would need great purification, its possible, why would not a moslem know more than me, I am still learning. So nobody can dispute that this man deliberatly committed a murder where it was impossible for said man to touch the corpse thus becoming unclean and needing a purification in which Bull's urine is needed.

Need a source, I already gave my sources and they are at this time not in despute.

Kalem sites a passage or two without being specific as to the translation Kalem chooses to use, kalem demonstrates he knows nothing of purifcation, no bathing in water, sure, that is true, the bath is not water, its Bull Urine, unfortunately one or two books is not sufficient, its possible Camel Urine can be used for purification. Some sects even use Urine to baptize babies. Either way purification is real, there is holy and unholy.

No prayer of purification, Kalem knows a tiny amount if anything about Islam and the culture.

The Koran is remarkable for its disconnected, fragmentary form and absence of any system in its composition. It is full of obscure passages giving rise to much discussion among modern commentators. Pierre Ponafidine, Life in the Moslem East. (download the full copy at google books).

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

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

Explain 9:5? Again...?

Very well. The verse in question applies clearly to the idolaters who were either hostile towards Muslims themselves or supported others in their hostility towards Muslims.

.

Clearly it also requires ignore the tense
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

 

[Coyote]

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 take cherry-picked quotes out of context to try to make a point. Anyone can do that. I'm sure you've seen people who bash Christianity in the same manner you are bashing Islam, do so with carefully selected quotes and passages that promote or seem to promote violence and intolerance. Certainly fundamentalist sects have made use of just such cherry picking to justify atrocities. Kalam is putting those quotes in context yet you claim he is "torturing" the Quran? Is context irrelevant then?

 

[Coyote]

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.


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.

I find those who cannot speak for themselves pathetic indeed. And the verse you provided addresses killing.

You have condemned nothing and your verse doesn't even apply to this.

You aren't man enough to condemn this. Of course, given the way your religion treats women in general, that comes as no surprise to me.

It is sad that you require some sort of "litmus test" as proof of rightful condemnation.

 

[Si modo]

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.


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.


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

I find those who cannot speak for themselves pathetic indeed. And the verse you provided addresses killing.

You have condemned nothing and your verse doesn't even apply to this.

You aren't man enough to condemn this. Of course, given the way your religion treats women in general, that comes as no surprise to me.

It is sad that you require some sort of "litmus test" as proof of rightful condemnation.

No litmus test, just an actual condemnation would go toward the poster's cred.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

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 take cherry-picked quotes out of context to try to make a point. Anyone can do that. I'm sure you've seen people who bash Christianity in the same manner you are bashing Islam, do so with carefully selected quotes and passages that promote or seem to promote violence and intolerance. Certainly fundamentalist sects have made use of just such cherry picking to justify atrocities. Kalam is putting those quotes in context and claim he is "torturing" the Quran? Is context irrelevant then?

I cherry pick from the Quran because I only care about the parts of the Quran that concern me.

The Quran contains little context on its own.
"kalam' post what he wants to people to believe is contextual , but provides little supporting evidence. IE Tafsir Hadith fatwa etc.

 

[Coyote]

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 take cherry-picked quotes out of context to try to make a point. Anyone can do that. I'm sure you've seen people who bash Christianity in the same manner you are bashing Islam, do so with carefully selected quotes and passages that promote or seem to promote violence and intolerance. Certainly fundamentalist sects have made use of just such cherry picking to justify atrocities. Kalam is putting those quotes in context and claim he is "torturing" the Quran? Is context irrelevant then?

I cherry pick from the Quran because I only care about the parts of the Quran that concern me.

The Quran contains little context on its own.
"kalam' post what he wants to people to believe is contextual , but provides little supporting evidence. IE Tafsir Hadith fatwa etc.

He provides more supporting evidence than either you or mdm do - he provides the historical context of those quotes and that is important in determining what they mean. All you do is quote texts on Middle Eastern Culture but Islam is not limited to the Middle East nor is it a monolithic religion - it has sects and differences of interpretation.

It is the same with the bible - it's not just the bible, but a host of associated material and history that gives it meaning and context - at least to any thoughtful person.

Your cherry picking is no different than that of fundamentalists and extremists who cherry pick the Quran, or Hadith, or the Bible to justify their narrow view of religion and inhumane acts. Your view is just as narrow and intolerant as that of extremists.

 

[mdn2000]

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 take cherry-picked quotes out of context to try to make a point. Anyone can do that. I'm sure you've seen people who bash Christianity in the same manner you are bashing Islam, do so with carefully selected quotes and passages that promote or seem to promote violence and intolerance. Certainly fundamentalist sects have made use of just such cherry picking to justify atrocities. Kalam is putting those quotes in context yet you claim he is "torturing" the Quran? Is context irrelevant then?

Coyote, did you see my post in the Anita Dunn thread, I dont want to accuse Coyote of cherry picking the threads Coyote posts in but in the Anita Dunn thread I pretty muched ripped your comments to threads so let me know if your getting to my post or if your cherry picking.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Mr. Fitnah, you take cherry-picked quotes out of context to try to make a point. Anyone can do that. I'm sure you've seen people who bash Christianity in the same manner you are bashing Islam, do so with carefully selected quotes and passages that promote or seem to promote violence and intolerance. Certainly fundamentalist sects have made use of just such cherry picking to justify atrocities. Kalam is putting those quotes in context and claim he is "torturing" the Quran? Is context irrelevant then?

I cherry pick from the Quran because I only care about the parts of the Quran that concern me.

The Quran contains little context on its own.
"kalam' post what he wants to people to believe is contextual , but provides little supporting evidence. IE Tafsir Hadith fatwa etc.

He provides more supporting evidence than either you or mdm do - he provides the historical context of those quotes and that is important in determining what they mean. All you do is quote texts on Middle Eastern Culture but Islam is not limited to the Middle East nor is it a monolithic religion - it has sects and differences of interpretation.
.

On matters of Islam that concern me, there is no daylight between any major school of Islamic thought and what I post.
Im glad you are able to find some meaning and value in what "kalam " posts.
As for him having supporting evidence ?
None that I find compelling based on my greater body of knowledge.

 

[Sunni Man]

As for him having supporting evidence ?
None that I find compelling based on my greater body of knowledge.

Get a grip Mr Fitnuts

Kalam is far more versed in Islam and supporting text than you by far.

He also is fluent in arabic. So he can real the original works.

 

[Kalam]

As for him having supporting evidence ?
None that I find compelling based on my greater body of knowledge.

Get a grip Mr Fitnuts

Kalam is far more versed in Islam and supporting text than you by far.

He also is fluent in arabic. So he can real the original works.

Thank you, brother.

Unfortunately I have not yet attained fluency in Arabic, but I'll be able to read the original works with no difficulty soon, in sha' Allah.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

Yeah, convert or die....that pretty much makes conversion easy.

 

[Kalam]

I find those who cannot speak for themselves pathetic indeed.

I arrived at a conclusion and condemned the criminal based on the teachings of the religion that has become the subject of this thread. I apologize if that wasn't what you were looking for.

And the verse you provided addresses killing.

You have condemned nothing and your verse doesn't even apply to this.

His intention was to kill and he acted on this intention. I doubt he expected or wanted to be unsuccessful, so he's hardly better than a murderer as far as I'm concerned.

You aren't man enough to condemn this. Of course, given the way your religion treats women in general, that comes as no surprise to me.

I have condemned it. I haven't changed my mind. What is it that you'd like for me to do?

I'll ignore the potshot at the end of your post.

 

[Kalam]

Yeah, convert or die....that pretty much makes conversion easy.

Still waiting...

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

As for him having supporting evidence ?
None that I find compelling based on my greater body of knowledge.

Get a grip Mr Fitnuts

Kalam is far more versed in Islam and supporting text than you by far.

He also is fluent in arabic. So he can real the original works.

I was referring to my knowledge compared t that of coyotes.
I have never denigrated 'kalam's knowledge,
I have just offered an alternative interpretation.
One that is widely accepted and is considered mainstream Islam.
I almost habitually only post the supporting text so much so you ridicule me by insistently asking if I have any original thoughts.
He is not fluent in arabic