IslamiCity.org Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Religion - Islam > Interfaith Dialogue
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Interesting Statement by Annie2  What is Islam What is Islam  Donate Donate
  FAQ FAQ  Quran Search Quran Search  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedInteresting Statement by Annie2

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 7891011>
Author
Message
Angela View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 11 July 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2555
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 June 2006 at 4:44pm
Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

Just noticing some of the "clarity" of the Quran:

2:29 He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth. Then turned He to the heaven, and fashioned it as seven heavens. And He is knower of all things.

So God created earth before heaven?  That makes no sense.

It says he turn to Heaven (so heaven must have already existed) and fashioned it as Seven Heavens.  (meaning he divided up what was already there)

2:61 And when ye said: O Moses! We are weary of one kind of food; so call upon thy Lord for us that He bring forth for us of that which the earth groweth - of its herbs and its cucumbers and its corn and its lentils and its onions. He said: Would ye exchange that which is higher for that which is lower ? Go down to settled country, thus ye shall get that which ye demand. And humiliation and wretchedness were stamped upon them and they were visited with wrath from Allah. That was because they disbelieved in Allah's revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. That was for their disobedience and transgression.

What prophets were there before Moses?  Whoops, Muhammad.

Adam, Enoch, Noah, Methuselah, I could go on, haven't you read your Bible?

2:194 The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil).

Attack those who attack you.  This is another message of peace from the Quran.

Umm, that's pretty clear.  Self Defense is no sin, its okay to protect yourself.

4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,

4:91 Ye will find others who desire that they should have security from you, and security from their own folk. So often as they are returned to hostility they are plunged therein. If they keep not aloof from you nor offer you peace nor hold their hands, then take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant.

In both cases, the Quran encourages the potential murder of innocent people.

This is warning about traitors.  This was during the time where "converts" were betraying the faithful.   Its about Spies and traitors.  There were several incidents where someone reverted to Islam only to get close and learn their plans, then ran home and told everyone.  I believe this is an acceptable practice to kill traitors in many religions.  But, of course, I'm sure you didn't study the history of what was going on when these revelations took place.

Anyone who claims that Islam is peaceful toward the non-believer is a liar.

Using and Anti-Muslim website to back up your claims just proves your ignorance to the subject matter. Those sites go out of their way to prove their points and often twist things to their own way.  I could post some KKK and White Supremacist groups that show Christianity believes that Africans are decendents of Ham and therefore should be slaves.  What to see them????  I'm sure you'd say they were wrong. 

Back to Top
ak_m_f View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 15 October 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3272
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 June 2006 at 4:45pm
2:29 He it is who has created for you all that is on earth, and has applied His design to the heavens and fashioned them into seven heavens;and He alone has full knowledge of everything.

note:

The term sama' ("heaven" or "sky") is applied to anything that is spread like a canopy above any other thing. Thus, the visible skies which stretch like a vault above the earth and form, as it were, its canopy, are called sama': and this is the primary meaning of this term in the Qur'an; in a wider sense, it has the connotation of "cosmic system". As regards the "seven heavens", it is to be borne in mind that in Arabic usage - and apparently in other Semitic languages as well - the number "seven" is often synonymous with "several" (see Lisan al-Arab), just as "seventy" or "seven hundred" often means "many" or "very many" (Taj al-'Arus). This, taken together with the accepted linguistic definition that "every samu' is a sama' with regard to what is below it" (Raghib), may explain the "seven heavens" as denoting the multiplicity of cosmic systems. - For my rendering of thumma, at the beginning of this sentence, as "and", see surah 7, first part of note 43.(Quran Ref: 2:29 )


2:61

(And when you said: O Moses! We will not endure one kind of food) we will not endure eating just honey and quails; (so pray unto your Lord) ask your Lord (for us that He bring forth for us of that which the earth groweth of its herbs and its cucumbers and its corn and its lentils and its onions. He) i.e. Moses (said: Would you exchange that which is higher) i.e. that which is better and more honourable: honey and quails (for that which is lower) that which is much worse: lentils and onions? (Go down to any city) where you came from; and it is also said that this means any city, (thus you shall get that which you demand) what you have requested is to be found there. (And humiliation) the capitation tax (and wretchedness) the attire of poverty (were stamped upon them) were imposed on them (and they were visited with wrath from Allah) as they deserved to be forsaken by Allah. (That) being forsaken by Allah and visited by humiliation and wretchedness (was because they disbelieved in Allah�s revelations) they disbelieved in Muhammad (pbuh) and in the Qur�an (and slew the prophets wrongfully) without any right and for no crime whatsoever. (That) Allah�s wrath (was for their disobedience) on the Sabbath (and transgression) slaying the prophets and declaring transgressions to be lawful.


just dont take the verse you like out of context to tarnish Islam, If you are really interesed in Islam then buy Quran's tafsir with translation, and read it verse by verse to make sense.


Please go here and read transtlation with explanation


Edited by ak_m_f
Back to Top
DavidC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar
Male Christian
Joined: 20 September 2001
Location: Florida USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2474
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 June 2006 at 4:45pm
Aquinian, it is beneath you to take selected verses out of context to fit a predetermined conclusion.

One expects that from an uneducated zealot, but you have demonstrated some degree of scholarship.  Did you loan your computer to somebody else?

Every verse of Quran has accumulated tasfeer that would take longer than one lifetime to exhaust.  I doubt we can find a verse, somehow "overlooked", that disproves the message .
Christian; Wesleyan M.Div.
Back to Top
Aquinian View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group

Joined: 09 June 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 61
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 June 2006 at 5:14pm

Originally posted by DavidC DavidC wrote:

Aquinian, it is beneath you to take selected verses out of context to fit a predetermined conclusion.

One expects that from an uneducated zealot, but you have demonstrated some degree of scholarship.  Did you loan your computer to somebody else?

Every verse of Quran has accumulated tasfeer that would take longer than one lifetime to exhaust.  I doubt we can find a verse, somehow "overlooked", that disproves the message .

While I respect my fellow Christians' views, as well as the views of Muslims, and while I admit that I may have been somewhat offensive in my prior comments, I must still disagree.

The greatest scholars of Islam reside in the middle east, not in The United States, and yet it is the U.S. Muslim organizations who feel the need to say that they do not condone terrorism and the koran does not condone terrorism.

I believe that the terrorists make sound arguments when they use the religion to kill innocent people.  They have lived Islam.  They have received instruction all of their lives.  The know the Quran better than any of us here, and they have concluded that suicide bombings are theologically moral:

http://ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=424

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1183 3

These clerics are well educated in the ways of Islam.  If any of you were to argue your views to them, they would soundly display a knowledge of the Quran vastly superior to yours, and yet you still claim that your interpretation is correct.

It is my view that Muslims who advocate peace against the infidel are not correctly interpreting the Quran.  Only history will tell us whether these clerics are right, or you guys are right.

Back to Top
ak_m_f View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 15 October 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3272
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 June 2006 at 5:27pm
Quote
It is my view that Muslims who advocate peace against the infidel are not correctly interpreting the Quran. Only history will tell us whether these clerics are right, or you guys are right.


All the clerics realated with Alqida & hamas are misrepresenting Islam, they have one mission of world domination through terrorism, I will hardly call them religious, they are politically motivated.

Back to Top
ak_m_f View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 15 October 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3272
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 June 2006 at 5:30pm
Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

Originally posted by DavidC DavidC wrote:

Aquinian, it is beneath you to take selected verses out of context to fit a predetermined conclusion.One expects that from an uneducated zealot, but you have demonstrated some degree of scholarship.� Did you loan your computer to somebody else?Every verse of Quran has accumulated tasfeer that would take longer than one lifetime to exhaust.� I doubt we can find a verse, somehow "overlooked", that disproves the message .


While I respect my fellow Christians' views, as well as the views of Muslims, and while I admit that I may have been somewhat offensive in my prior comments, I must still disagree.


The greatest scholars of Islam reside in the middle east, not in The United States, and yet it is the U.S. Muslim organizations who feel the need to say that they do not condone terrorism and the koran does not condone terrorism.


I believe that the terrorists make sound arguments when they use the religion to kill innocent people.� They have lived Islam.� They have received instruction all of their lives.� The know the Quran better than any of us here, and they have concluded that suicide bombings are theologically moral:


http://ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=424


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1183 3


These clerics are well educated in the ways of Islam.� If any of you were to argue your views to them, they would soundly display a knowledge of the Quran vastly superior to yours, and yet you still claim that your interpretation is correct.


It is my view that Muslims who advocate peace against the infidel are not correctly interpreting the Quran.� Only history will tell us whether these clerics are right, or you guys are right.



Mustafa Mashhur, General Guide, Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt; Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, Pakistan; Muti Rahman Nizami, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, Bangladesh; Shaykh Ahmad Yassin, Founder, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Palestine; Rashid Ghannoushi, President, Nahda Renaissance Movement, Tunisia; Fazil Nour, President, PAS - Parti Islam SeMalaysia, Malaysia; and 40 other Muslim scholars and politicians:
�The undersigned, leaders of Islamic movements, are horrified by the events of Tuesday 11 September 2001 in the United States which resulted in massive killing, destruction and attack on innocent lives. We express our deepest sympathies and sorrow. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur'an: 'No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another' (Surah al-Isra 17:15).�
MSANews, September 14, 2001, http://msanews.mynet.net/MSANEWS/200109/20010917.15.html;
Arabic original in al-Quds al-Arabi (London), September 14, 2001, p. 2, http://www.alquds.co.uk/Alquds/2001/09Sep/14%20Sep%20Fri/Qud s02.pdf

Shaykh Yusuf Qaradawi, Qatar; Tariq Bishri, Egypt; Muhammad S. Awwa, Egypt; Fahmi Huwaydi, Egypt; Haytham Khayyat, Syria; Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani, U.S.:
�All Muslims ought to be united against all those who terrorize the innocents, and those who permit the killing of non-combatants without a justifiable reason. Islam has declared the spilling of blood and the destruction of property as absolute prohibitions until the Day of Judgment. ... [It is] necessary to apprehend the true perpetrators of these crimes, as well as those who aid and abet them through incitement, financing or other support. They must be brought to justice in an impartial court of law and [punished] appropriately. ... [It is] a duty of Muslims to participate in this effort with all possible means.�
Statement of September 27, 2001. The Washington Post, October 11, 2001, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40545-2001Oct 10.html
Full text of this fatwa in English and Arabic.

Shaykh Muhammed Sayyid al-Tantawi, imam of al-Azhar mosque in Cairo, Egypt:
�Attacking innocent people is not courageous, it is stupid and will be punished on the day of judgement. ... It�s not courageous to attack innocent children, women and civilians. It is courageous to protect freedom, it is courageous to defend oneself and not to attack.�
Agence France Presse, September 14, 2001

Abdel-Mo'tei Bayyoumi, al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy, Cairo, Egypt:
�There is no terrorism or a threat to civilians in jihad [religious struggle].�
Al-Ahram Weekly Online, 20 - 26 September 2001, http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/552/p4fall3.htm

Muslim Brotherhood, an opposition Islamist group in Egypt, said it was �horrified� by the attack and expressed �condolences and sadness�:
�[We] strongly condemn such activities that are against all humanist and Islamic morals. ... [We] condemn and oppose all aggression on human life, freedom and dignity anywhere in the world.�
Al-Ahram Weekly Online, 13 - 19 September 2001, http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/551/fo2.htm

Shaykh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, spiritual guide of Shi�i Muslim radicals in Lebanon, said he was �horrified� by these �barbaric ... crimes�:
�Beside the fact that they are forbidden by Islam, these acts do not serve those who carried them out but their victims, who will reap the sympathy of the whole world. ... Islamists who live according to the human values of Islam could not commit such crimes.�
Agence France Presse, September 14, 2001

�Abdulaziz bin �Abdallah Al-Ashaykh, chief mufti of Saudi Arabia:
�Firstly: the recent developments in the United States including hijacking planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood, constitute a form of injustice that cannot be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts. Secondly: any Muslim who is aware of the teachings of his religion and who adheres to the directives of the Holy Qur'an and the sunnah (the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad) will never involve himself in such acts, because they will invoke the anger of God Almighty and lead to harm and corruption on earth.�
Statement of September 15, 2001, http://saudiembassy.net/press_release/01-spa/09-15-Islam.htm

�Abdulaziz bin �Abdallah Al-Ashaykh, chief mufti of Saudi Arabia:
"You must know Islam�s firm position against all these terrible crimes. The world must know that Islam is a religion of peace and mercy and goodness; it is a religion of justice and guidance�Islam has forbidden violence in all its forms. It forbids the hijacking airplanes, ships and other means of transport, and it forbids all acts that undermine the security of the innocent."
Hajj sermon of February 2, 2004, in "Public Statements by Senior Saudi Officials Condemning Extremism and Promoting Moderation," May 2004, http://www.saudiembassy.net/ReportLink/Report_Extremism_May0 4.pdf, page 10

Shaikh Saleh Al-Luheidan, Chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council, Saudi Arabia:
"As a human community we must be vigilant and careful to oppose these pernicious and shameless evils, which are not justified by any sane logic, nor by the religion of Islam."
Statement of September 14, 2001, in "Public Statements by Senior Saudi Officials Condemning Extremism and Promoting Moderation," May 2004, http://www.saudiembassy.net/ReportLink/Report_Extremism_May0 4.pdf, page 6

Shaikh Saleh Al-Luheidan, Chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council, Saudi Arabia:
"And I repeat once again: that this act that the United states was afflicted with, with this vulgarity and barbarism, and which is even more barbaric than terrorist acts, I say that these acts are from the depths of depravity and the worst of evils."
Televised statement of September 2001, in Muhammad ibn Hussin Al-Qahtani, editor, The Position of Saudi Muslim Scholars Regarding Terrorism in the Name of Islam (Saudi Arabia, 2004), pages 27-28.


Shaykh Muhammad bin �Abdallah al-Sabil, member of the Council of Senior Religious Scholars, Saudi Arabia:
�Any attack on innocent people is unlawful and contrary to shari'a (Islamic law). ... Muslims must safeguard the lives, honor and property of Christians and Jews. Attacking them contradicts shari'a.�
Agence France Presse, December 4, 2001

Council of Saudi �Ulama', fatwa of February 2003:
"What is happening in some countries from the shedding of the innocent blood and the bombing of buildings and ships and the destruction of public and private installations is a criminal act against Islam. ... Those who carry out such acts have the deviant beliefs and misleading ideologies and are responsible for the crime. Islam and Muslims should not be held responsible for such actions."
The Dawn newspaper, Karachi, Pakistan, February 8, 2003, http://www.dawn.com/2003/02/08/top17.htm; also in "Public Statements by Senior Saudi Officials Condemning Extremism and Promoting Moderation," May 2004, http://www.saudiembassy.net/ReportLink/Report_Extremism_May0 4.pdf, page 10

Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, chairman of the Sunna and Sira Council, Qatar:
"Our hearts bleed for the attacks that has targeted the World Trade Center [WTC], as well as other institutions in the United States despite our strong oppositions to the American biased policy towards Israel on the military, political and economic fronts. Islam, the religion of tolerance, holds the human soul in high esteem, and considers the attack against innocent human beings a grave sin, this is backed by the Qur�anic verse which reads: �Who so ever kills a human being [as punishment] for [crimes] other than manslaughter or [sowing] corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and who so ever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind� (Al-Ma�idah:32)."
Statement of September 13, 2001. http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2001-09/13/article25 .shtml. Arabic original at http://www.qaradawi.net/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item _no=1665&version=1&template_id=130&parent_id=17

Tahirul Qadri, head of the Awami Tehrik Party, Pakistan:
"Bombing embassies or destroying non-military installations like the World Trade Center is no jihad. ... "[T]hose who launched the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks not only killed thousands of innocent people in the United States but also put the lives of millions of Muslims across the world at risk. ... Bin Laden is not a prophet that we should put thousands of lives at risk for."
United Press International, October 18, 2001, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/17/195606.s html


Ayatollah Ali Khamene�i, supreme jurist-ruler of Iran:
�Killing of people, in any place and with any kind of weapons, including atomic bombs, long-range missiles, biological or chemical weopons, passenger or war planes, carried out by any organization, country or individuals is condemned. ... It makes no difference whether such massacres happen in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Qana, Sabra, Shatila, Deir Yassin, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq or in New York and Washington.�
Islamic Republic News Agency, September 16, 2001, http://www.irna.com/en/hphoto/010916000000.ehp.shtml

President Muhammad Khatami of Iran:
�[T]he September 11 terrorist blasts in America can only be the job of a group that have voluntarily severed their own ears and tongues, so that the only language with which they could communicate would be destroying and spreading death.�
Address to the United Nations General Assembly, November 9, 2001, http://www.president.ir/cronicnews/1380/8008/800818/800818.h tm#b3

League of Arab States:
�The General-Secretariat of the League of Arab States shares with the people and government of the United States of America the feelings of revulsion, horror and shock over the terrorist attacks that ripped through the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, inflicting heavy damage and killing and wounding thousands of many nationalities. These terrorist crimes have been viewed by the League as inadmissible and deserving all condemnation. Divergence of views between the Arabs and the United States over the latter�s foreign policy on the Middle East crisis does in no way adversely affect the common Arab attitude of compassion with the people and government of the United States at such moments of facing the menace and ruthlessness of international terrorism. In more than one statement released since the horrendous attacks, the League has also expressed deep sympathy with the families of the victims. In remarks to newsmen immediately following the tragic events, Arab League Secretary-General Amre Moussa described the feelings of the Arab world as demonstrably sympathetic with the American people, particularly with families and individuals who lost their loved ones. �It is indeed tormenting that any country or people or city anywhere in the world be the scene of such disastrous attacks,� he added. While convinced that it is both inconceivable and lamentable that such a large-scale, organised terrorist campaign take place anywhere, anytime, the League believes that the dreadful attacks against WTC and the Pentagon unveil, time and again, that the cancer of terrorism can be extensively damaging if left unchecked. It follows that there is a pressing and urgent need to combat world terrorism. In this context, an earlier call by [Egyptian] President Hosni Mubarak for convening an international conference to draw up universal accord on ways and means to eradicate this phenomenon and demonstrate international solidarity is worthy of active consideration. The Arabs have walked a large distancein the fight against cross-border terrorism by concluding in April 1998 the Arab Agreement on Combating Terrorism.�
September 17, 2001, http://www.leagueofarabstates.org/E_Perspectives_17_09_01.as p

Dr. Abdelouahed Belkeziz, Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference:
�Following the bloody attacks against major buildings and installations in the United States yesterday, Tuesday, September 11, 2001, Dr. Abdelouahed Belkeziz, secretary-general of the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), stated that he was shocked and deeply saddened when he heard of those attacks which led to the death and injury of a very large number of innocent American citizens. Dr. Belkeziz said he was denouncing and condemning those criminal and brutal acts that ran counter to all covenants, humanitarian values and divine religions foremost among which was Islam.�
Press Release, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, September 12, 2001, http://www.oic-oci.org/press/english/september%202001/americ a%20on%20attack.htm

Organization of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers:
�The Conference strongly condemned the brutal terror acts that befell the United States, caused huge losses in human lives from various nationalities and wreaked tremendous destruction and damage in New York and Washington. It further reaffirmed that these terror acts ran counter to the teachings of the divine religions as well as ethical and human values, stressed the necessity of tracking down the perpetrators of these acts in the light of the results of investigations and bringing them to justice to inflict on them the penalty they deserve, and underscored its support of this effort. In this respect, the Conference expressed its condolences to and sympathy with the people and government of the United States and the families of the victims in these mournful and tragic circumstances.�
Final Communique of the Ninth Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, October 10, 2001, http://www.oic-oci.org/english/fm/All%20Download/frmex9.htm

Organization of the Islamic Conference, Summit Conference:
"We are determined to fight terrorism in all its forms. ... Islam is the religion of moderation. It rejects extremism and isolation. There is a need to confront deviant ideology where it appears, including in school curricula. Islam is the religion of diversity and tolerance."
Daily Star (Beirut, Lebanon), December 9, 2005, http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_ id=2&article_id=20641


Mehmet Nuri Yilmaz, Head of the Directorate of Religious Affairs of Turkey:
�Any human being, regardless of his ethnic and religious origin, will never think of carrying out such a violent, evil attack. Whatever its purpose is, this action cannot be justified and tolerated.�
Mehmet Nuri Yilmaz, �A Message on Ragaib Night and Terrorism,� September 21, 2001, http://www.diyanet.gov.tr/duyurular/regaibing.htm

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar), Turkish author:
�Islam does not encourage any kind of terrorism; in fact, it denounces it. Those who use terrorism in the name of Islam, in fact, have no other faculty except ignorance and hatred.�
Harun Yahya, �Islam Denounces Terrorism,� http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com

Shaikh Muhammad Yusuf Islahi, Pakistani-American Muslim leader:
�The sudden barbaric attack on innocent citizens living in peace is extremely distressing and deplorable. Every gentle human heart goes out to the victims of this attack and as humans we are ashamed at the barbarism perpetrated by a few people. Islam, which is a religion of peace and tolerance, condemns this act and sees this is as a wounding scar on the face of humanity. I appeal to Muslims to strongly condemn this act, express unity with the victims' relatives, donate blood, money and do whatever it takes to help the affected people.�
�Messages From Shaikh Muhammad Yusuf Islahi,� http://www.icna.org/wtc_islahi.htm

Abdal-Hakim Murad, British Muslim author:
�Targeting civilians is a negation of every possible school of Sunni Islam. Suicide bombing is so foreign to the Quranic ethos that the Prophet Samson is entirely absent from our scriptures.�
�The Hijackers Were Not Muslims After All: Recapturing Islam From the Terrorists,� http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/masud/ISLAM/ahm/recapturing.htm

Syed Mumtaz Ali, President of the Canadian Society of Muslims:
�We condemn in the strongest terms possible what are apparently vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. We join with all Canadians in calling for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts.�
Canadian Society of Muslims, Media Release, September 12, 2001, http://muslim-canada.org/news09112001.html

15 American Muslim organizations:
�We reiterate our unequivocal condemnation of the crime committed on September 11, 2001 and join our fellow Americans in mourning the loss of up to 6000 innocent civilians.�
Muslim American Society (MAS), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Muslim Alliance of North America (MANA), Muslim Student Association (MSA), Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), Solidarity International, American Muslims for Global Peace and Justice (AMGPJ), American Muslim Alliance (AMA), United Muslim Americans Association (UMAA), Islamic Media Foundation (IMF), American Muslim Foundation (AMF), Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations (CCMO), American Muslims for Jerusalem (AMJ), Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA), October 22, 2001, http://www.icna.org/wtc_pr.htm

57 leaders of North American Islamic organizations, 77 intellectuals, and dozens of concerned citizens:
�As American Muslims and scholars of Islam, we wish to restate our conviction that peace and justice constitute the basic principles of the Muslim faith. We wish again to state unequivocally that neither the al-Qaeda organization nor Usama bin Laden represents Islam or reflects Muslim beliefs and practice. Rather, groups like al-Qaeda have misused and abused Islam in order to fit their own radical and indeed anti-Islamic agenda. Usama bin Laden and al-Qaeda's actions are criminal, misguided and counter to the true teachings of Islam.�
Statement Rejecting Terrorism, September 9, 2002, http://www.islam-democracy.org/terrorism_statement.asp


American Muslim Political Coordination Council:
�American Muslims utterly condemn what are apparently vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. We join with all Americans in calling for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts.�
http://capwiz.com/cair/issues/alert/?alertid=49818&type=CU&a zip=

Dr. Agha Saeed, National Chair of the American Muslim Alliance:
�These attacks are against both divine and human laws and we condemn them in the strongest terms. The Muslim Americans join the nation in calling for swift apprehension and stiff punishment of the perpetrators, and offer our sympathies to the victims and their families.�
http://www.amaweb.org/AMA%20Condemns.html

Hamza Yusuf, American Muslim leader:
�Religious zealots of any creed are defeated people who lash out in desperation, and they often do horrific things. And if these people [who committed murder on September 11] indeed are Arabs, Muslims, they're obviously very sick people and I can't even look at it in religious terms. It's politics, tragic politics. There's no Islamic justification for any of it. ... You can't kill innocent people. There's no Islamic declaration of war against the United States. I think every Muslim country except Afghanistan has an embassy in this country. And in Islam, a country where you have embassies is not considered a belligerent country. In Islam, the only wars that are permitted are between armies and they should engage on battlefields and engage nobly. The Prophet Muhammad said, ``Do not kill women or children or non-combatants and do not kill old people or religious people,'' and he mentioned priests, nuns and rabbis. And he said, ``Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees and do not poison the wells of your enemies.'' The Hadith, the sayings of the Prophet, say that no one can punish with fire except the lord of fire. It's prohibited to burn anyone in Islam as a punishment. No one can grant these attackers any legitimacy. It was evil.�
San Jose Mercury News, September 15, 2001, http://www0.mercurycenter.com/local/center/isl0916.htm

Nuh Ha Mim Keller, American Muslim author:
�Muslims have nothing to be ashamed of, and nothing to hide, and should simply tell people what their scholars and religious leaders have always said: first, that the Wahhabi sect has nothing to do with orthodox Islam, for its lack of tolerance is a perversion of traditional values; and second, that killing civilians is wrong and immoral.�
�Making the World Safe for Terrorism,� September 30, 2001, http://66.34.131.5/ISLAM/nuh/terrorism.htm

Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens), prominent British Muslim:
"I wish to express my heartfelt horror at the indiscriminate terrorist attacks committed against innocent people of the United States yesterday. While it is still not clear who carried out the attack, it must be stated that no right thinking follower of Islam could possibly condone such an action: the Qur'an equates the murder of one innocent person with the murder of the whole of humanity. We pray for the families of all those who lost their lives in this unthinkable act of violence as well as all those injured; I hope to reflect the feelings of all Muslims and people around the world whose sympathies go out to the victims at this sorrowful moment."
[On singing an a cappella version of "Peace Train" for the Concert for New York City:] "After the tragedy, my heart was heavy with sadness and shock, and I was determined to help in some way. Organizers asked me to take part in a message for tolerance and sing 'Peace Train.' Of course, I agreed. ... As a Muslim from the West, it is important to me to let people know that these acts of mass murder have nothing to do with Islam and the beliefs of Muslims."
Press release of September 13, 2001, and PR Newswire, October 22, 2001, both at http://www.mountainoflight.co.uk/pages/news/2001.html

Muslims Against Terrorism, a U.S.-based organization:
�As Muslims, we condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. Ours is a religion of peace. We are sick and tired of extremists dictating the public face of Islam.�
http://www.muslimsagainstterrorism.org/aboutus.html. This statement has been replaced by a new statement in favor of peace by the group's successor organization, Muslim Voices for Peace, http://www.mvp-us.org.

Abdulaziz Sachedina, professor of religious studies, University of Virginia:
�New York was grieving. Sorrow covered the horizons. The pain of separation and of missing family members, neighbors, citizens, humans could be felt in every corner of the country. That day was my personal day of �jihad� (�struggle�) - jihad with my pride and my identity as a Muslim. This is the true meaning of jihad � �struggle with one�s own ego and false pride.� I don�t ever recall that I had prayed so earnestly to God to spare attribution of such madness that was unleashed upon New York and Washington to the Muslims. I felt the pain and, perhaps for the first time in my entire life, I felt embarrassed at the thought that it could very well be my fellow Muslims who had committed this horrendous act of terrorism. How could these terrorists invoke God�s mercifulness and compassion when they had, through their evil act, put to shame the entire history of this great religion and its culture of toleration?�
�Where Was God on September 11?," http://www.virginia.edu/~soasia/newsletter/Fall01/God.html

Ali Khan, professor of law, Washburn University School of Law:
�To the most learned in the text of the Quran, these verses must be read in the context of many other verses that stipulate the Islamic law of war---a war that the Islamic leader must declare after due consultation with advisers. For the less learned, however, these verses may provide the motivation and even the plot for a merciless strike against a self-chosen enemy.�
�Attack on America: An Islamic Perspective, September 17, 2001, http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew29.htm

Muqtedar Khan, assistant professor of political science, Adrian College, Michigan, USA:
�What happened on September 11th in New York and Washington DC will forever remain a horrible scar on the history of Islam and humanity. No matter how much we condemn it, and point to the Quran and the Sunnah to argue that Islam forbids the killing of innocent people, the fact remains that the perpetrators of this crime against humanity have indicated that their actions are sanctioned by Islamic values. The fact that even now several Muslim scholars and thousands of Muslims defend the accused is indicative that not all Muslims believe that the attacks are unIslamic. This is truly sad. ... If anywhere in your hearts there is any sympathy or understanding with those who committed this act, I invite you to ask yourself this question, would Muhammad (pbuh) sanction such an act? While encouraging Muslims to struggle against injustice (Al Quran 4:135), Allah also imposes strict rules of engagement. He says in unequivocal terms that to kill an innocent being is like killing entire humanity (Al Quran 5:32). He also encourages Muslims to forgive Jews and Christians if they have committed injustices against us (Al Quran 2:109, 3:159, 5:85).�
�Memo to American Muslims,� October 5, 2001, http://www.ijtihad.org/memo.htm

Dr. Alaa Al-Yousuf, Bahraini economist and political activist:
�On Friday, 14 September [the first Friday prayers after 11 September], almost the whole world expressed its condemnation of the crime and its grief for the bereaved families of the victims. Those who abstained or, even worse, rejoiced, will have joined the terrorists, not in the murder, but in adding to the incalculable damage on the other victims of the atrocity, namely, Islam as a faith, Muslims and Arabs as peoples, and possibly the Palestinian cause. The terrorists and their apologists managed to sully Islam as a faith both in the eyes of many Muslims and non-Muslims alike.�
Interview with the International Forum for Islamic Dialogue, London, http://www.islam21.net/pages/keyissues/key7-6.htm

Dr. S. Parvez Manzoor, Swedish-based Muslim author:
�If these acts of terror indeed have been perpetrated by Muslim radicals or fundamentalists, they have reaped nothing but eternal damnation, shame and ignominy. For nothing, absolutely nothing, could remotely be advanced as an excuse for these barbaric acts. They represent a total negation of Islamic values, an utter disregard of our fiqhi tradition, and a slap in the face of the Ummah. They are in total contrast to what Islamic reason, compassion and faith stand for. Even from the more mundane criteria of common good, the maslaha of the jurists, these acts are treasonous and suicidal. Islamic faith has been so callously and casually sacrificed at the altar of politics, a home-grown politics of parochial causes, primeval passions, self-endorsing piety and messianic terror.�
Interview with the International Forum for Islamic Dialogue, London, http://www.islam21.net/pages/keyissues/key7-6.htm

Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysian Islamic activist and former deputy prime minister:
�Never in Islam's entire history has the action of so few of its followers caused the religion and its community of believers to be such an abomination in the eyes of others. Millions of Muslims who fled to North America and Europe to escape poverty and persecution at home have become the object of hatred and are now profiled as potential terrorists. And the nascent democratic movements in Muslim countries will regress for a few decades as ruling autocrats use their participation in the global war against terrorism to terrorize their critics and dissenters. This is what Mohammed Atta and his fellow terrorists and sponsors have done to Islam and its community worldwide by their murder of innocents at the World Trade Center in New York and the Defense Depart-ment in Washington. The attack must be condemned, and the condemnation must be without reservation.�
Anwar Ibrahim, �Growth of Democracy Is the Answer to Terrorism,� International Herald Tribune, October 11, 2001, http://www.iht.com/articles/35281.htm

Ziauddin Sardar, British Muslim author:
�The failure of Islamic movements is their inability to come to terms with modernity, to give modernity a sustainable home-grown expression. Instead of engaging with the abundant problems that bedevil Muslim lives, the Islamic prescription consists of blind following of narrow pieties and slavish submission to inept obscurantists. Instead of engagement with the wider world, they have made Islam into an ethic of separation, separate under-development, and negation of the rest of the world.�
Ziauddin Sardar, �Islam has become its own enemy,� The Observer, October 21, 2001, http://www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,577942 ,00.html

Khaled Abou El Fadl, Kuwaiti-Egyptian-American legal scholar:
�It would be disingenuous to deny that the Qur'an and other Islamic sources offer possibilities of intolerant interpretation. Clearly these possibilities are exploited by the contemporary puritans and supremacists. But the text does not command such intolerant readings. Historically, Islamic civilization has displayed a remarkable ability to recognize possibilities of tolerance, and to act upon these possibilities.�
Khaled Abou El Fadl, �The Place of Tolerance in Islam: On Reading the Qur'an -- and Misreading It,� Boston Review, December 2001/January 2002, http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR26.6/elfadl.html

Sheikh Muhammad Ali Al-Hanooti, Palestinian-American mufti and member of the North American Fiqh Council:
�The people who attacked the WTC and Pentagon and hijacked the forth plane that crashed in Pennsylvania are criminal who deserve the severest punishment as the Quran elaborates. They are murderers and terrorists. If there were any person who felt happy for that incident we would not be able to equate them with those criminals, but we can say no one with faith and ethics would accept anything of that murder and targeting of innocent people.�
Sheikh Muhammad Ali Al-Hanooti, "Fatwa Session on Latest Tragic Events," IslamOnline, September 20, 2001, http://www.islamonline.net/livefatwa/english/Browse.asp?hGue stID=pdwD2E

Syed Shahabuddin, Indian Muslim author:
�Islam prohibits terrorism as well as suicide. Jihad is neither and has no place for taking innocent lives or one�s own life. No cause, howsoever noble or just, can justify terrorism. So while one may sympathize with the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people and support their claim to a state of their own, while one may appreciate the democratic awakening among the people of many Muslim states and uphold their demand for withdrawal of foreign presence from their soil and support their struggle for revision of the terms of trade for their natural resources, no thinking Muslim can go along with the use of terrorism for securing political goals.�
Syed Shahabuddin, "Global war against terrorism � the Islamic dimension," Milli Gazette newspaper, New Delhi, India, November 1, 2001, http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/01112001/34.htm

Dr. M. A. Zaki Badawi, principal of the Muslim College, London, England:
�Neither the law of Islam nor its ethical system justify such a crime.�
Dr. M. A. Zaki Badawi, "Terrorism has no place in Islam," Arab News, Jiddah-Riyadh-Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, September 28, 2001, http://www.arabnews.com/?page=5§ion=0&article=9314&d=28& m=9&y=2001

Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai, head mufti at Jamiat-ul-Uloom-ul-Islamia seminary, Binori Town, Pakistan and a leader of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) party, Pakistan:
�It's wrong to kill innocent people. ... It's also wrong to praise those who kill innocent people.�
The New York Times, September 28, 2001, p. B3

Shaykh Omar Bakri, leader of al-Muhajirun, a radical Islamist movement based in London, England:
�If Islamists did it -- and most likely it is Islamists, because of the nature of what happened -- then they have fully misunderstood the teachings of Islam. ... Even the most radical of us have condemned this. I am always considered to be a radical in the Islamic world and even I condemn it.�
The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec, Canada), September 13, 2001, p. B6

Zuhair Qudah, a preacher at al-Lawzieen mosque, Amman, Jordan:
"We stand by our Palestinian brothers in their struggle to end the occupation, but we don't condone violence, ugly crimes and the killing of innocent people."
Associated Press, September 14, 2001

Salih bin Muhammad Lahidan, chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council, Saudi Arabia:
�Killing the weak, infants, women, and the elderly, and destroying property, are considered serious crimes in Islam. . . . Viewing on the TV networks what happened to the twin towers . . . was like watching doomsday. Those who commit such crimes are the worst of people. Anyone who thinks that any Islamic scholar will condone such acts is totally wrong. . . . This barbaric act is not justified by any sane mind-set. . . . This act is pernicious and shameless and evil in the extreme.�
The Washington Post, October 13, 2001, p. B9

Shaykh Rached Ghannouchi, chairman of Tunisia's an-Nahda Movement, in exile in London, England:
�Such destruction can only be condemned by any Muslim, however resentful one may be of America's biased policies supporting occupation in Palestine, as an unacceptable attack on thousands of innocent people having no relation to American policies. Anyone familiar with Islam has no doubt about its rejection of collective punishment, based on the well-known Quranic principle that 'no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another.'�
The Washington Post, October 13, 2001, p. B9

Shaykh Salih al-Suhaymi, religious scholar, Saudi Arabia:
�Based upon what has preceded, then we say that that which we believe and hold as our religion concerning what happened to the World Trade Centre in America � and in Allaah lies success � that the terrorist attacks that took place and what occurred of general (mass) killing, then it is not permissible and Islaam does not allow it in any form whatsoever.�
"Shaykh Saalih as-Suhaymee speaks about current affairs...," October 18, 2001, translated by Abu 'Iyaad, http://www.fatwaonline.com/news/0011018.htm

Dr. Sayed G. Safavi, Iranian religious scholar and director of the Institute of Islamic Studies, London, England:
�The targeting of innocent persons cannot be allowed. Islam is against any form of terrorism, whether it be carried out by an individual, a group or a state. ... For Muslims to kill civilians unconnected with any attack on them is a crime. The principal law of Islam is: don't attack civilians. This includes civilians of any faith, whether Jewish, Muslim or Christian. According to Islam, all people are the family of God. The target of religion is peace.�
Letter to the Editor, The Daily Telegraph, London, England, June 30, 2003, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2 003/06/30/dt3001.xml

Iqbal Siddiqui, editor of Crescent International, London, England:
�History also teaches us that the only effective way of challenging oppression and the only effective way of fighting injustice is through force; that is simply the way of the world. Pacifism is all too often a weapon of the status quo.... When Islamic movements in the world do need to resort to the use of force, that force must be used morally. When extreme fringes of those movements are pushed to use force indiscriminately, immorally, wrongly against illegitimate targets, and using illegitimate weapons (such [as] hijacked jumbo jets), those are crimes for which the people who share their cause, who share their view of the world, their understanding of the need to use force, must also criticise them, turn against them, isolate them. Our standards must be higher than those of the people whom we are fighting, because if we descend to their standards then there is no difference between us.�
Iqbal Siddiqui, "Terrorism and political violence in contemporary history," Conference on Terrorism, Institute of Islamic Studies, London, England, November 13, 2001, published in Muslimedia International, February 16-28, 2002, http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/movement02/terror-hist.ht m. Earlier version on-line at http://www.islamic-studies.org/terrorconfer.pro.htm

Islamway website:
"In light of these and other Islamic texts, the act of inciting terror in the hearts of defenseless civilians, the wholesale destruction of buildings and properties, the bombing and maiming of innocent men, women, and children are all forbidden and detestable acts according to Islam and the Muslims."
"What Does Islam Say About Terrorism?" http://english.islamway.com/bindex.php?section=article&id=12 6

Islamic Commission of Spain:
"Muslims, therefore, are not only forbidden from committing crimes against innocent people, but are responsible before God to stop those people who have the intention to do so, since these people 'are planting the seeds of corruption on Earth'.... The perpetration of terrorist acts supposes a rupture of such magnitude with Islamic teaching that it allows to affirm that the individuals or groups who have perpetrated them have stopped being Muslim and have put themselves outside the sphere of Islam."
"Text of the Fatwa Declared Against Osama Bin Laden by the Islamic Commission of Spain," March 17, 2005, http://webislam.com/?idn=537; original Spanish version: "La Comisi�n Isl�mica de Espa�a emite una fatua condenando el terrorismo y al grupo Al Qaida," March 10, 2005, http://www.webislam.com/?idn=399.


Fatwa signed by more than 500 British Muslim scholars, clerics, and imams:
"Islam strictly, strongly and severely condemns the use of violence and the destruction of innocent lives. There is neither place nor justification in Islam for extremism, fanaticism or terrorism. Suicide bombings, which killed and injured innocent people in London, are HARAAM - vehemently prohibited in Islam, and those who committed these barbaric acts in London [on July 7, 2005] are criminals not martyrs. Such acts, as perpetrated in London, are crimes against all of humanity and contrary to the teachings of Islam. ... The Holy Quran declares: 'Whoever kills a human being� then it is as though he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a human life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.' (Quran, Surah al-Maidah (5), verse 32) Islam�s position is clear and unequivocal: Murder of one soul is the murder of the whole of humanity; he who shows no respect for human life is an enemy of humanity."
British Muslim Forum, press release of July 18, 2005, http://www.britishmuslimforum.org/view_press_release.php?id= 26.


Fiqh Council of North America, an association of 18 Muslim legal scholars, fatwa endorsed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS), the Association of Muslim Scientists and Engineers (AMSE), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and more than 130 Muslim organizations, mosques and leaders in the United States:
"We have consistently condemned terrorism and extremism in all forms and under all circumstances, and we reiterate this unequivocal position. Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism. Targeting civilians' life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram - prohibited in Islam - and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not 'martyrs.'"
"Fatwa by U.S. Muslims Against Religious Extremism," July 25, 2005, http://www.mpac.org/bucket_downloads/fatwa-on-terrorism.pdf.


Islamic Society of North America, Anti-Terrrorism Anti-Extremism Committee:
"Humanity lives today in an interdependent and interconnected world where peaceful and fair interaction, including interfaith and intra-faith dialogue, is imperative. A grave threat to all of us nowadays is the scourge of religious and political extremism that manifests itself in various forms of violence, including terrorism. In the absence of a universally agreed upon definition of terrorism, it may be defined as any act of indiscriminate violence that targets innocent people, whether committed by individuals, groups or states. As Muslims, we must face up to our responsibility to clarify and advocate a faith-based, righteous and moral position with regard to this problem, especially when terrorist acts are perpetrated in the name of Islam. The purpose of this brochure is to clarify a few key issues relating to this topic, not because of external pressures or for the sake of �political correctness�, but out of our sincere conviction of what Islam stands for."
Islamic Society of North America, "Against Terrorism and Religious Extremism: Muslim Position and Responsibilities," 2005, http://www.balancedislam.org/ATAECbrochure.pdf.


Shaykh Abdulaziz Al-Asheikh, chief mufti of Saudi Arabia:
The London attacks, "targeting peaceful people, are not condoned by Islam, and are indeed prohibited by our religion. ... Attributing to Islam acts of individual or collective killings, bombings, destruction of properties and the terrorizing of peaceful people is unfair, because they are alien to the divine religion."
Fatwa-Online, July 9, 2005, http://www.fatwa-online.com/news/0050709.htm


Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab al-'Aqeel, professor of creed ('aqeedah) at the College of Proselytising (da'wah), Islamic University of Madinah, Saudi Arabia:
"Terrorism is the terror that is caused by those groups or individuals who resort to killing and wreaking havoc and destruction. Terrorism is therefore, according to the contemporary compilers of modern Arabic dictionaries, killing akin to the riotous killing that is mentioned within the texts of Shar'eeah. As the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) mentioned with regards to the signs of the end of time, the spread of 'al-Harj' (riotous killing). The meaning of 'al-Harj' is killing and the increase of the spilling blood, which is all from the signs of the end of time. To the extent that the one killing will not know why he is killing and the one that was killed will not know why he/she was killed. Islam is free from this riotous killing, free from this terrorism and free from this kind of corruption. Terrorism is established upon destruction of properties such as factories, farms, places of worship, train stations, airports and the likes; Islam is clearly free from such actions that are based upon corruption and not upon rectification. Terrorists usually say that they are going against the state in which they are based within. This is like the mafia or other criminal organisations that are based on killing people, causing fear and taking their monies. Such criminal organisations have leaders, deputies and individuals that are responsible for establishing regulations for the organisation and individuals responsible for carrying out attacks, and all of them are terrorists causing corruption on the earth. However the ugliest face of terrorism is that which is established in the name of religion, all of the religions from the Prophets (peace be upon them) are free from such terrorism, even if some of the followers of the Prophets participated in such terrorist activities, but the Prophets are free from such corruptions."
Lecture on "The Evils of Terrorism," August 20, 2005, translated in Islam Against Terrorism - v1.20, September 17, 2005, http://www.fatwa-online.com/downloads/dow004/islamagainstter rorism.chm


See also:

Bernard Haykel, assistant professor of Islamic law at New York University:
"According to Islamic law there are at least six reasons why Bin Laden's barbaric violence cannot fall under the rubric of jihad: 1) Individuals and organizations cannot declare a jihad, only states can; 2) One cannot kill innocent women and children when conducting a jihad; 3) One cannot kill Muslims in a jihad; 4) One cannot fight a jihad against a country in which Muslims can freely practise their religion and proselytize Islam; 5) Prominent Muslim jurists around the world have condemned these attacks and their condemnation forms a juristic consensus (ijma') against Bin Laden's actions (This consensus renders his actions un-Islamic); 6) The welfare and interest of the Muslim community (maslaha) is being harmed by Bin Laden's actions and this equally makes them un-Islamic."



Edited by ak_m_f
Back to Top
Andalus View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1187
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 June 2006 at 10:13pm
Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

Originally posted by Andalus Andalus wrote:

Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

Originally posted by Andalus Andalus wrote:

Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

Well, to be frank, the Quran came 600 years after the time of Christ and yet it reads much like the Old Testament.  To paraphrase, "If this happens, stone this person."  "If that happens, pay this person 50 shillings."  I do not wish to blaspheme the Quran, but it is a regressive text, in terms of philosophical brilliance.

You have made some errneous assumptions.

1) So if the Revelation to Moses came centuries after Noah, then the revelation to Moses is false because it was not the same as that to Noah, and soe not follow the philosophical specualtion of how Gd must work.

2) Perhaps we should compare your "philisophical assumptions" with your own theology.

-Gd gives a series of commands to Moses

-Christians have these commands in their bible, and the one (Jesus) they follow also followed them. 

-Christianity is not given commands. They have now moved beyond Gd's law, and without any guidance, they have the "option" to create their own laws, 99% of the time is compeltely out of "convenience".

This not an evolved progresion, this is called "pie in the sky" theology based upon the speculation of man.

Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

Your faith should not read like a how-to manual - through the love of God, you should know what is right.

So too bad for Moses, and Noah, and Jesus huh? A crack head ont he street gets a free ride with Gd but not Moses. Now thats certainly rational!

So according to you, a religous manual should not read at all, excapet for a few ambiguous ideas, we can just be free to do whatever the heck we want! Nice. Sign me up!

Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

  Christ uses figurative language, but it's not rocket science trying to figure it out. 

Actually, rocket science is a lot easier than using the texts that your church has based its foundations on.

Your texts support such a wide range of views about Jesus and his very nature. Not like rockte science? You are correct. Rocket science is way easier. This is due to the lack of any solid substance concerning what Jesus actually said and believed. Your faith is defined by men who never actually new him.

 

Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

I have a difficult time comprehending how the brilliance of Christ, the apostles, and Paul regressed so much with the texts of Muhammad.

 

I have always had a difficult time figuring out how people were duped into following "pie in the sky" theology that has no bases in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Regression: Moses taught a law, followed the law, and told people they were able to follow it.

Paul said the law was not important. The churc said we are incapable of following the law.

Moses used the mitzvah to walk close to Gd.

Paul taught that we only need to feel Gd.

All of the prophets brought men close to Gd's law.

Paul took men away from it.

Moses taught to worship Gd alone, with any notion of a triune Gd.

Paul set the foundations for one of the most wicked innovations ever: A Gd with three aspects.

Moses brought forth truth.

Paul distorted and even lied about the Hebrew Scriptures.

Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

  600 years after Christ and he still couldn't get past the idea of "eye for an eye."  Jesus does away with it in favor of a higher understanding of how we treat our neighbor.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. 

Actually, Christians inserted portions such as the adulteress woman. It is an added addition. Christian were left with nearly no guidance from Jesus, so they simply interpolated their own ideas and forged them into their own books.

So the ideas that Jesus abolished the laws are based upon a fabrication, and trying to read personal conjecture into ambiguous verses. The Ebionites, Christians who rejected Paul, and thought of him as a lunatic, still followed the law, completely.

How much of the commands thats houdl be followed was uncertain to your own eraly founders, who debated this. It required so much debate because of the lack of supporting evidence from Jesus.

Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

 You would think Muhammad would have attempted to take something from the beauty of Christ's message.

The Prophet addressed the core messages from the time of Jesus and beyond. What you mean is that he did not address what the church thought.

Originally posted by aquinian aquinian wrote:

Even if Jesus did say "I am God," you still wouldn't believe. 

Irrelevant.

The charge is this: You claim Jesus is Gd. An extraodinary claim. So I look for extraordinary evidence from yoru text. And it doeas not give the evidence required for the claim. Whether or not I believe it or not, is not relevant.

Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

 He says that if you have seen Him, then you have seen the father.  What else do you need?  This kind of denial only indicates that you do not wish to say what you really think: Jesus' words in John are really not his words.  Say that instead of making this claim that Jesus had to say what you want him to say.

You , like your church fathers, are forcing a single interpretation.

Keep in mind that your complaint of a religion that has a "how to book", also carries with it "explicit" statements that define the faith, and defined what Gd wants you to do.

Your book is full of implicit statements, and 99% of your proof texts are based upon implicit statements. The reason the church relies so heaviy on "implicit" statements is the very nature of such statements.

This is from a reputable on line dictionary:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va =explicit

Explicit

1 a : fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent <explicit instructions> b : open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality <explicit books and films>
2 : fully developed or formulated <an explicit plan> <an explicit notion of our objective>
3 : unambiguous in expression <was very explicit on how we are to behave>
4 of a mathematical function : defined by an expression containing only independent variables

This is in contrast to "implicit".

1 a : capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed : IMPLIED <an implicit assumption> b : involved in the nature or essence of something though not revealed, expressed, or developed

Your faith relies too heavily on implicit statments, and this alone should be unsettling to anyone searching for the truth of Gd. This goes to the heart of the complaint that my brothers and sisters are bringing up. Your beliefs do not rest on anything "explicit". "Explicitness" is at the heart of Islam and to a lesser degree in Judaism. In fact, visiting Christians in Mecca once debated with the Prophet (saw) and in the debate they tried to argue from implicit statements in the Quran. The Problem for the Christian delegation was that the implicit are definded by the many explicit.

Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

Does God have to be what you want him to be?  Does he have to be one person in one God or can he be three persons in one God if it is his will?

Thats a good question you should meditate on. Your high level of use and dependency on "implicit" statements should cause you to deeply think and ask this very question.

Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

Simplicity is not always the answer (negate Occam's Razor) - the brilliance of Christian thought and theology indicates that clearly, as well as the numerous advances made by Christian civilization in the past 2000 years.

So chaos and ambiguity is the answer? Your faith has been redefining itself for 2000 years, with no hope of end in sight, because your faith lacks any texts that have any real information to define your way of life and who Gd is.

Christian civilization has not been proof of "brilliance" that stands out. For the first 1000 years, one could find nothing but ignorance, disease, illiteracy, corruption amongst the clergy, and a completely backward society. Christendom took over a 1000 years to start forming any real civilization, and then by the age of enlightenment, western thinkers began a series of arguments that deflated church theology setting the course for darwinism and athiesm. In effect, the church put all of its eggs in the aristotilean basket, and when CHristendom did achieve learning, it came back to bight them and discredit their theology. 

I disagree completely with your characterization of the Christian faith, but no surprise there.

I'd say your main claim, in all of that redundant text, is that Christianity is based on implicit claims from a Bible that was created by individuals who had no intent to accurately represent Christ's words.

No. My claim is that the Christian faith is too dependent upon implicit verses for "extraordinary" ideas. The NT was put together by men who had no real clue as to the historical Jesus, due to the fact that they had no real connection through any verifiable chain of narrators or document that would allow them to truly discern fact from fiction. The men who composed your NT simply used narratives, four amongst hundreds, that best represented their theological position, not necessarily the historical Jesus. To futher their positions, they fudged their MSS (this is a fact) so that Gd's word would look closer to their ideas, and they chose implicit text (they a lot to choose from) to further prove their claims.

Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

 

This is clearly false.  We have the actual words of Christ and his direct disciples, and we know what he said - it was written down and passed on just like your Koran. 

Actually you don't. You have four written copies, of copies, of copies of oral narratives, from amongst hundreds of other narratives, without even the slightest clue as to the author, narrators, or historical validity. You simply pass along your trust to "faith".

And even after 300 years from the birth of Jesus, your doctors were still hashing out basics like the "nature of Christ". Why after 300 years were their various sects that could not agree on something as basic as "who is Jesus"?

Because they were without any real facts and they knew it, and they had to find their conjecture hidden in the implicit verses of the hundreds of narratives circulating.

Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

 

 Muslims have some notions of Christ but have no idea why they believe what they believe about him.  They certainly do not rely on Christ's words in the Bible because his words go against the faith of Islam, as I have proven.

I would say that Islamic Theology goes against much of Christian creative interpolating with the use of "implicit" statements. In other words, saying that your bible says Jesus is Gd, and when one looks at the passage, it is in the NT, and it is an extremely vague and ambiguous passage that requires circular reasoning in order to render as such due to the fact that there is nothing explicit which can define the implicit verse. We have only Christian belief and faith to guide us on the proof verses and nothing else. Islamic theology simply makes claims about Jesus that not onle make sense, but are also consistant with all other men of Gd.

Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

Seeing as how the middle east has failed to enter into its own enlightenment period yet, I would vouch for the west's movement into higher thinking during the Rennaissance. 

You are now trying to superimpose western history onto the rest of the world. Entering an age of enlightement would assume that there was an age of darkness, and that the doctrine was problematic.

In your history, the church, and the faith that it rested upon did not work socially, as the holy ghost was never their to write holy law on the hearts of men. It was the age when men took reason, that they used philosophy to destroy the doctrine of the church. This brought Christendom out of the dark ages. Islamic civilization has reached a low point, but due to its inital high points, one cannot claim tha the doctrine is the cause. Islam is in need of a "re-enlightenment" that occure nearly 1100 years ago.

Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

 You are claiming that the enlightenment undermined the theology of the church, and yet the Catholic Church is the second largest church in the world, next to the church of Muhammad. 

Interesting. So the age of enlightenment undermined church theology (that is factual), but it is the second largest church! So what does that tell you?

Are you saying that because it is the second largest church, that it must be correct? Or that the age of enlightenment was wrong?

Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

 Christianity is still the largest religion in the world, with many of its newest adherents coming from strongholds of Islam such has Africa.

Judaism was the smallest religion in the world during the temple period, yet it was the correct faith accoridng to your bible. Since the pagan faiths were larger, in your rational, then they should have been the correct faith?

As far as the droves of Muslims becoming Christians and the growth of the church in Africa...well...this is not something I would brag about.

1) The claim is exagerrated.

2) The adherents are 99.9% of the time desperate people trying to escape poverty. Targeting adherents that are in a desperate situation in life is not something I would be very proud of. Use it if you like, but I would rather show you adherents who made a choice out of thinking, and not out of hunger.

Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

 

  To say that the enlightenment undermined the theology of Catholicism or Christianity at all is a complete fabrication - it clarified it.

 The age of enlightenment castrated the church! Thats why it has little relevance in the governmental processes of today, in which it exists in "secualr societies". The age of enlightnement not only undermined your theology, but it also removed it from power as anyone could see that the theology was problematic.

Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

 

Muslims point to the simplicity of their faith and somehow believe that it makes it more correct.  This is, as I said, an interpretation of Ockham's razor gone wrong.

Christ says that you shall know the tree by its fruit.  When the fruit of Islam brings so much suffering for so many people, including women who are abused and mistreated by a male elite, children who are indoctrinated into hatred of the Jews, teens who willingly blow themselves up to kill Jews, fundementalists who encourage violence and a return to the middle ages (simplicity for sure), torture and mutilation of those who oppose them, court trials for religious converts, and many many other clear indicators of suffering, one must only conclude that the tree is dying.

Interesting little list. This is also evidence of your ignorance about Islam. I will not go through each claim. I would happy to go point by point?

Now lets talk about "fruits".

1) Since you believe that Jesus is Gd, then we can know his fruits when he had his chosen people slaughter babies. Now that is a tasy fruit ay? Or no?

2) The Church force converted the people of Europe to Christianity at the edge of a sword. Good fruit?

3) The Church committed atrocities against the natives of the Americas.

4) The Church persecuted Jews, and threw them, along with Muslims, out of SPain, and stole their money. Thats a tasty fruit!

5) The church promoted ignorance and growth for over a 1000 years. How fruity!

6) It was Christian America that first introduced policies of "terrorism" to promote a policy of "containment of communism" at all costs. What is the name of that fruit? It seems the Christian west were excellent teachers to the modern day PLO and Hamas.

7) The Christian US armed regimes such as Sadaam Hussein and even helped with with WMD. They continue to put into power the state of Israel and turn a blind eye to the terrible treatment it emplys against Christian and Muslim arabs.

As usual for many Christians, you suffer from "plank in your eye" syndrom.

 

Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

I would prefer an "enlightenment" that advances and clarifies the views of humanity through science and reason rather than a fundementalist dogma that dominates its people rather than sets them free.

I would prefer a religion that provides solid answers and solutions such that I did not require an age of enlightenment. I would prefer a religion that inspired great innovations in science and math, and encouraged people to learn and read. I prefer a religion that has texts that provide me a with a solid enough foundation so that I would not have to traget the weakest and most desperate of society in order to find converts.

It seems I found a bargain!

The difference with Christianity is that the faith does not condone, in any possible way, the killing of innocent human beings.  It does not condone recriprocal treatment.  Anytime that Christians have killed the innocent or acted reciprocally to their brothers, they have been in clear violation of the words of Christ.  These are moments when they deviated from their beliefs.

Two Points:

1)

Yes Aquinian. This is the typical Christian apologetical shuffle.

This shuffle has the following dance moves:

People who were Muslim killed other people.

Therefore, Islam is evil

People who are Christians killed other people.

They were not true or real Christians so Christianity is pure.

 2) Islam does not teach the killing of innocents.

While we are on this subject, could you please explain to me what the babies did that Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit, had murdered as told in the Torah? How were they not innocent?

Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

On the contrary, when Muslims become more indoctrinated in their faith, you find that they become avid fundementalists who favor more and more extreme violence against those who oppose them.

 

I am "fully" indoctrinated. As are millions of Muslims. I do not see the mass violence.

Your claim is that of a "phobic". Please provide evidence. Not cheap blanket statements.

I did notice that you skipped over the deviant behavior of your brethern over the last 2000 years though.

 

Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

  The Koran outlines the killing of those who oppose Islam.  The murder of innocent people is supported by the theology of the Quran, and yet you tell me that Christians bear poor fruit.  There is not doubt that Christians have been wrong.  It is due in no part to their faith's teachings.

1) Please provide examples.

2) You are doing the shuffle again. No one here is that stupid not to see the dance moves. Seriously. It is a double standard that missionaries have been using for the last 2000 years. No one buys it.

Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

  

You cannot say the same about Islam.

It seems you cannot say anything about Islam that has substance. You are providing charges and assertions that are nothing but cheap shots and baseless accusations, generalizations, etc, etc.

 

Originally posted by Aquinian Aquinian wrote:

So, what if the rational and simple teachings of Islam are correct and you are truly winning the argument?  Defending a theology that supports the murder of innocent people is certainly something to be proud of.

another assertion. What teaching are you speaking of?

Is it like the one where Jesus orders the slaughter of babies? Or is it another one?

 

A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/
Back to Top
BMZ View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 03 April 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1852
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 June 2006 at 5:28am

Angela,

Your response to AquinianPosted: 27 June 2006 at 4:44pm 

  

On a lighter note, those cruel and horrible pagan Meccans who were persecuting, torturing and killing the 'new Muslims' did not know that violence begat violance.

I sincerely appreciate your answers typed in blue.

Best Regards

BMZ

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 7891011>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.