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

[mdn2000]

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

Kalem, I spoke of apostasy and disbelievers, apostasy is clearly what the daughter is guilty of and this response of your does not apply to apostasy.

Kalem, does not reference the Hadith, as important as the Koran.

Your point about Shi'ah is irrelevant as well, for one you can never stereotype what an entire sect of people think.

The disbeliever is unclean, sure the beliefs are unclean, but the Moslem considers the entire person as unclean, its not just the beliefs or thoughts that are unclean, the person as a whole is considered unclean. Nice try though.

Did you ignore the post purposely or are you busy researching a response because you are uneducated in regards to the culture of Islam,

I see you cannot reference the Hadith, any real student of Islam knows the Hadith is as important as the Qur'an. You should be using this as your primary reference in this discussion.

 

[Si modo]

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 that teaching, which you quoted and say applies to you, does NOT condemn killing of a non-believer.

So, one must know if you view this girl as a non-believer or not to know if you actually condemn the egregious act of violence. I made the question of that condition quite obvious several times, now.

So?

 

[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 that teaching, which you quoted and say applies to you, does NOT condemn killing of a non-believer.

So, one must know if you view this girl as a non-believer or not to know if you actually condemn the egregious act of violence. I made the question of that condition quite obvious several times, now.

So?

No, I don't, nor would it matter to me if she was. Murder is not permissible either way.

 

[mdn2000]

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 that teaching, which you quoted and say applies to you, does NOT condemn killing of a non-believer.

So, one must know if you view this girl as a non-believer or not to know if you actually condemn the egregious act of violence. I made the question of that condition quite obvious several times, now.

So?

It is obvious Kalem knows a little of Islam but not a lot. The woman is guilty of Apostasy which is much different than simply being a non-believer. Passages and quotes from the Qur'an which deal with the non-believer are secondary to the Hadiths that deal with a person guilty of Apostasy.

This is a very big error on Kalem's part.

Kalem is either not a student of Islam or Kalem is attempting to hide the truth.

 

[Si modo]

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 that teaching, which you quoted and say applies to you, does NOT condemn killing of a non-believer.

So, one must know if you view this girl as a non-believer or not to know if you actually condemn the egregious act of violence. I made the question of that condition quite obvious several times, now.

So?

No, I don't, nor would it matter to me if she was. Murder is not permissible either way.

Finally. Good to know.

 

[Coyote]

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 that teaching, which you quoted and say applies to you, does NOT condemn killing of a non-believer.

So, one must know if you view this girl as a non-believer or not to know if you actually condemn the egregious act of violence. I made the question of that condition quite obvious several times, now.

So?

It is obvious Kalem knows a little of Islam but not a lot. The woman is guilty of Apostasy which is much different than simply being a non-believer. Passages and quotes from the Qur'an which deal with the non-believer are secondary to the Hadiths that deal with a person guilty of Apostasy.

This is a very big error on Kalem's part.

Kalem is either not a student of Islam or Kalem is attempting to hide the truth.

Or, maybe you don't know as much as you claim.

 

[Coyote]

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

Kalem, I spoke of apostasy and disbelievers, apostasy is clearly what the daughter is guilty of and this response of your does not apply to apostasy.

Kalem, does not reference the Hadith, as important as the Koran.

Your point about Shi'ah is irrelevant as well, for one you can never stereotype what an entire sect of people think.
The disbeliever is unclean, sure the beliefs are unclean, but the Moslem considers the entire person as unclean, its not just the beliefs or thoughts that are unclean, the person as a whole is considered unclean. Nice try though.

Did you ignore the post purposely or are you busy researching a response because you are uneducated in regards to the culture of Islam,

I see you cannot reference the Hadith, any real student of Islam knows the Hadith is as important as the Qur'an. You should be using this as your primary reference in this discussion.

Aren't you stereotyping what an entire religion thinks?

Also, the Hadiths are huge volumes of material - there are many of them, often contradictory - your average muslim is not likely to be as familiar with them as the Quran. In fact - I doubt many bother to read them.

By the way...weren't you the fellow whining about "attacking the messanger"....isn't that what you have been doing with Kalam?

 

[Kalam]

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,

There are not thousands of translations of the Qur'an into English; there are about fifty. The translations that are most frequently relied upon by academics are similar enough that one can assume they're largely reliable, so you don't really have an argument there.

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.

If you were at all familiar with the Qur'an or hadith collections, my citations would be clear to you. A Qur'anic passage is cited by giving the number of its surah followed by the number or numbers of whatever ayah or ayaat are cited. I cite ahadith by specifying the name of the collection, the name of the book in which the hadith appears, and the number of the hadith.

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

I'm glad that you're self-confident. That can be a good attribute. Unfortunately, you're incorrect in this case.

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.

Persons, practices, and objects may be regarded as "unclean" without being considered ritually impure. The fact is that none of the four major Sunni madhhabs consider disbelievers ritually impure to the extent that ablution is required after coming into contact with one. While I'm sure that your books on the Middle East are interesting reads, knowledge of Islam requires familiarizing oneself with Islamic scripture, jurisprudential resources, and other religious writings.

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.

Once again, you're incorrect. Disagreement exists over whether the corpses of Muslims are ritually impure.

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet came across me in one of the streets of Medina and at that time I was Junub. So I slipped away from him and went to take a bath. On my return the Prophet said, "O Abu Huraira! Where have you been?" I replied, "I was Junub, so I disliked to sit in your company." The Prophet said, "Subhan Allah! A believer never becomes impure." - Sahih Bukhari, Ghusl, no. 281​

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.

You're presupposing that this had anything to do with the crime. The vast majority of "honor killings" are carried out in ways that involve physical contact between the murderer and the victim. The victims were probably hit with a car because that was the most convenient way for the would-be murderer to attack them. Moreover, you're incorrect once again about the rules regarding najasa. Rules vary slightly between the Sunni Madhhabs and more significantly between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi'a.

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

Full ablution (ghusl) is generally required after the following for Sunnis:

• Sexual intercourse or any kind of sexual discharge (Sahih Muslim, Haid, no. 616 and others)
• Reaching puberty - full ablution is required every Friday (Sahih Bukhari, Characteristics of Prayer, no. 817)
• Dying (Sahih Bukhari, Janaaiz)

It's also recommended before formally converting, before performing hajj, and before Eid prayers. Partial ablution (wudu) is required before handling the Qur'an or praying.

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.

Not in any major Sunni school of thought. Only the body itself needs to undergo ghusl.

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.

Uh... that's not correct. Ghusl and wudu must be performed using clean water according to all sources.

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

You sources are, for the most part, the travel accounts of Western orientalists. If you're looking for accurate information about Islam, read the scripture itself or consult a knowledgeable 'alim.

kalem demonstrates he knows nothing of purifcation

You're right; I know nothing about the purification I undergo every day.

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.

Using "bull urine" in ablutions is un-Islamic. Only clean water may be used; this is not disputed.

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

Claiming that you know more about Islam than Muslims while posting the ridiculous nonsense you peddle does not tend to work wonders for your credibility. You do not know more about Islam than I do. Just a word of friendly advice.

 

[Coyote]

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 that teaching, which you quoted and say applies to you, does NOT condemn killing of a non-believer.

So, one must know if you view this girl as a non-believer or not to know if you actually condemn the egregious act of violence. I made the question of that condition quite obvious several times, now.

So?

I'm assuming your religion is Christianity, based on your attitudes.

Does it specifically condemn the killing of a non-believer? After all, there are cherry picked quotes from the bible instructing believers to do just that.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Condemnation by providing a quote that is the basis of the philosophy you live by, is still condemnation.

Apparently it doesn't suit you. Hence - litmus test.

 

[Si modo]

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 that teaching, which you quoted and say applies to you, does NOT condemn killing of a non-believer.

So, one must know if you view this girl as a non-believer or not to know if you actually condemn the egregious act of violence. I made the question of that condition quite obvious several times, now.

So?

I'm assuming your religion is Christianity, based on your attitudes.

Does it specifically condemn the killing of a non-believer? After all, there are cherry picked quotes from the bible instructing believers to do just that.

Is that the subject of the thread? No. Focus.

And read how illogical your tu quoque point is. Congratulations on joining the irrelevance club.

 

[Si modo]

Condemnation by providing a quote that is the basis of the philosophy you live by, is still condemnation.

Apparently it doesn't suit you. Hence - litmus test.

If one is going to use 'hence', they really should not use it when presenting a non sequitur. It just makes them look even sillier.

 

[Kalam]

Kalem, I spoke of apostasy and disbelievers, apostasy is clearly what the daughter is guilty of

Source? That is not what was said in the article.

Kalem, does not reference the Hadith, as important as the Koran.

No, they aren't. The Qur'an is the divine word of Allah (SWT) and is accepted by all Muslims. Placing ahadith at the same level of the Qur'an would imply that they're as genuine and reliable as the word of Allah (SWT) - implying that something is equal to Allah (SWT) in any way is a form of shirk, a major sin in Islam. Ahadith are not divine and opinions on the reliability of certain hadith collections varies from sect to sect. FWIW, I've referenced a ton of ahadith. You're unaware of this because you have no clue what you're talking about.

The oldest and most respected book is the Qur'an, which contains a multitude of references to events in Muhammad's life. It is the only account that can be considered 100% factual and reliable in Islam, and the only source of guidance that all Muslims share in common.

Next in supposed reliability for many Muslims are the hadith collections. The Sunni canon consists of Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud, Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Sunan as-Sughra, and Sunan ibn Maja. Shi'ites generally reject the Sunni canon, and acceptance of other collections among Shi'ites tends to vary from sect to sect. The most prominent sect, the Twelvers, accepts the Kitab al-Kafi, Man la yahduruhu al-Faqih, Tahdhib al-Ahkam, and Al-Istibsar. Even Muslims who believe in one canon of ahadith or another admit that they're non-divine and fallible. After all, in spite of the careful research completed by most compilers, ahadith are based on oral traditions transmitted over multiple centuries and must be tested for accuracy using the Qur'an. As Bernard Lewis wrote, "the collection and scrutiny of Hadiths didn't take place until several generations [after Muhammad's death]... during that period the opportunities and motives for falsification were almost unlimited."

The biographies are even less reliable. Unlike ahadiths, biographical accounts were based on oral traditions with unknown isnad (chains of transmitters). Because the transmitters of these traditions are not even known, the reliability of these biographies is even more questionable than the reliability of hadith collections and no definitive conclusions should be drawn about the life of Muhammad (SAW) based on biographies alone.

Your point about Shi'ah is irrelevant as well, for one you can never stereotype what an entire sect of people think.

First of all, that statement was based on a juristic ruling that is adhered to by all Shi'ite Muslims; it wasn't a generalization. Secondly, your arguments are based entirely on the misconceptions of orientalists and blanket generalizations that you make based thereon. I'm beginning to wonder if you're a troll. If so, I congratulate you for having a lively sense of humor, but I'm not interested in wasting my time.

The disbeliever is unclean, sure the beliefs are unclean, but the Moslem considers the entire person as unclean, its not just the beliefs or thoughts that are unclean, the person as a whole is considered unclean. Nice try though.

Let's make this easy. Cite a work on Sunni fiqh that claims that wudu is compromised by physical contact with a kafir or a mushrik.

Did you ignore the post purposely or are you busy researching a response because you are uneducated in regards to the culture of Islam,

I ignored the post initially because it was long, poorly written, and supersaturated with bullshit. I don't know what made me change my mind.

I see you cannot reference the Hadith, any real student of Islam knows the Hadith is as important as the Qur'an. You should be using this as your primary reference in this discussion.

I cited Bukhari in my first reponse to you. If you were the least bit acquainted with the Diin al-Islam, you'd know that Sahih Bukhari is a major Sunni hadith collection. And no, as I pointed out earlier, the Qur'an takes precedence over all man-made texts, including ahadith. Belief otherwise constitutes shirk.

As amusing as it is to see you claim that I don't know anything about the religion I study daily, I pity you for being so delusional. Please do yourself a favor and at least read a wikipedia article or two before you make a fool of yourself again.

It's "Kalam", by the way.

 

[Coyote]

And that teaching, which you quoted and say applies to you, does NOT condemn killing of a non-believer.

So, one must know if you view this girl as a non-believer or not to know if you actually condemn the egregious act of violence. I made the question of that condition quite obvious several times, now.

So?

I'm assuming your religion is Christianity, based on your attitudes.

Does it specifically condemn the killing of a non-believer? After all, there are cherry picked quotes from the bible instructing believers to do just that.

Is that the subject of the thread? No. Focus.

And read how illogical your tu quoque point is. Congratulations on joining the irrelevance club.

Oh? (raises eyebrow)

Read your link a bit more thoroughly.

In many cases tu quoque arguments are used in a logically fallacious way, to draw a conclusion which is not supported by the premises of the argument.

You-too version
This form of the argument is as follows:

A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.
This is an instance of the two wrongs make a right fallacy

I am not dismissing P.

Nice try though.

 

[Coyote]

Condemnation by providing a quote that is the basis of the philosophy you live by, is still condemnation.

Apparently it doesn't suit you. Hence - litmus test.

If one is going to use 'hence', they really should not use it when presenting a non sequitur. It just makes them look even sillier.

You must be related to the Grammar and Spelling Nazis. In otherwords, they can't address the points so they resort to picking at grammar.

Congratulations.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

t.
Explain 9:5? Again...?

9:5 again maybe this time you will answer
Who pays zakat?
Who preforms as salat.

9:5. 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
yeah

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Using "bull urine" in ablutions is un-Islamic.. Only clean water may be used; this is not disputed.

What is the meaning of the word "tayammum"

 

[Si modo]

Condemnation by providing a quote that is the basis of the philosophy you live by, is still condemnation.

Apparently it doesn't suit you. Hence - litmus test.

If one is going to use 'hence', they really should not use it when presenting a non sequitur. It just makes them look even sillier.

You must be related to the Grammar and Spelling Nazis. In otherwords, they can't address the points so they resort to picking at grammar.

Congratulations.

Pssst. That wasn't a critique of your grammar.

 

[Si modo]

I'm assuming your religion is Christianity, based on your attitudes.

Does it specifically condemn the killing of a non-believer? After all, there are cherry picked quotes from the bible instructing believers to do just that.

Is that the subject of the thread? No. Focus.

And read how illogical your tu quoque point is. Congratulations on joining the irrelevance club.

Oh? (raises eyebrow)

Read your link a bit more thoroughly.

In many cases tu quoque arguments are used in a logically fallacious way, to draw a conclusion which is not supported by the premises of the argument.

You-too version
This form of the argument is as follows:

A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.
This is an instance of the two wrongs make a right fallacy

I am not dismissing P.

Nice try though.

LMAO!!!!!! You don't even understand the fallacy you used even when it's explained to you.

 

[Coyote]

Is that the subject of the thread? No. Focus.

And read how illogical your tu quoque point is. Congratulations on joining the irrelevance club.

Oh? (raises eyebrow)

Read your link a bit more thoroughly.

In many cases tu quoque arguments are used in a logically fallacious way, to draw a conclusion which is not supported by the premises of the argument.

You-too version
This form of the argument is as follows:

A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.
This is an instance of the two wrongs make a right fallacy

I am not dismissing P.

Nice try though.

LMAO!!!!!! You don't even understand the fallacy you used even when it's explained to you.

Or perhaps you are misusing it.