14yr old girl reported as injured by the Taliban.

[SevenRivers]

Yes, no problem. But it doesn't represent a failure of sharia law if the Taliban can't read or write properly.

 

Indeed, some would say a victory for Sharia Law.

[maxmaximus]

How you get that from the quotes I gave is beyond me - especially I clearly demonstrated not to be the case.

 

So either you are in desperate need of a new pair of reading glasses or even had the Quran stated in black and white ''Islamic' terrorists are not Muslim' you would have not accepted it.

 

I used the Quran to demonstrate my points, please feel free to use it to show where the kind of acts carried out by terrorists are justified.

 

I clearly explained how I came to my opinion based on your quotes and explanation, but I will try again, I don’t expect you to accept it because that is the nature of opinions and the reason your opinions on Islam are neither right nor wrong, they are just your opinions to which you are entitled.

 

There aren’t any Islamic terrorists, they see themselves as the defenders of Islam, and their justification is Israel’s occupation of Palestine and West’s support of Israel, along with the West’s attacks on their homelands and people. Your quotes and explanation of each quote is enough to give them a justification for their action.

 

I just followed your quotes and explanation, you explained that Allah would frown upon any Muslim that didn’t take action to defend their fellow Muslims from persecution, I have explained why some Muslims feel persecuted and from your quotes and explanation this would give them the justification to be at war with the aggressors, they perceive the West to be the aggressors, so have declared war on the West. This group of Muslims are just doing what they think Allah expects of them based on their interpretation of the Quran which would appear to be the same has your interpretation.

You just don’t think they are justified so shouldn’t be called Muslims, I guess because you don’t think the West have done anything to give them a justification for their attacks.

 

Can you see how your interpretation is just that, it’s yours and many people will come to a different interpretation from the same information, it is perfectly normal for humans to come to entirely different views and opinions based on the same information but its arrogant to think your opinion and interpretation of the information is the only correct interpretation.

 

I imagine it would be quite insulting to Muslims for a non Muslim to say they aren’t actually Muslims because they don’t follow your interpretation of their holy book.

[PaliRichard]

I clearly explained how I came to my opinion based on your quotes and explanation, but I will try again, I don’t expect you to accept it because that is the nature of opinions and the reason your opinions on Islam are neither right nor wrong, they are just your opinions to which you are entitled.

 

There aren’t any Islamic terrorists, they see themselves as the defenders of Islam, and their justification is Israel’s occupation of Palestine and West’s support of Israel, along with the West’s attacks on their homelands and people. Your quotes and explanation of each quote is enough to give them a justification for their action.

 

I just followed your quotes and explanation, you explained that Allah would frown upon any Muslim that didn’t take action to defend their fellow Muslims from persecution, I have explained why some Muslims feel persecuted and from your quotes and explanation this would give them the justification to be at war with the aggressors, they perceive the West to be the aggressors, so have declared war on the West. This group of Muslims are just doing what they think Allah expects of them based on their interpretation of the Quran which would appear to be the same has your interpretation.

You just don’t think they are justified so shouldn’t be called Muslims, I guess because you don’t think the West have done anything to give them a justification for their attacks.

 

Can you see how your interpretation is just that, it’s yours and many people will come to a different interpretation from the same information, it is perfectly normal for humans to come to entirely different views and opinions based on the same information but its arrogant to think your opinion and interpretation of the information is the only correct interpretation.

 

I imagine it would be quite insulting to Muslims for a non Muslim to say they aren’t actually Muslims because they don’t follow your interpretation of their holy book.

 

You didn't though did you, you took the bits that applied to your opinion and ignored other bits that went against it, then had the nerve to say that I don't understand interpretation and opinion.

 

You haven't got a different 'interpretation' of the verses I offered, you have read them selectively, these are two completely different things.

 

That is why I asked you to justify your opinion using the verses from the Quran, I want to see how you draw the conclusion you draw.

 

The thing that you keep missing, the vital point is that I am using the universally accepted definition of Muslim, it has nothing to do with what I think or misinterpretation, it is the accepted version. This is totally different from the broad use of the word 'Muslim' to describe someone who associates themselves with Islam - I have made this point clearly and consistantly and it appears that you are unable to grasp that point.

 

Until you get this vital point you will continue to misunderstand what I'm saying. I have been using 'Muslim' using Islam's own criteria for the word - I am not judging anybody - which seems to be a point you can't grasp. The self identity of a person is a different thing - my point is, and has been consistantly - that according to the recognised definition of the word certain groups/individuals who claim to be Muslim are not acting in accordance with that definition - these groups are then using people from the west's same ignorance (that is - we tend to lump them all under the category Muslim) to justify there actions and recruit new members.

 

So I will ask you again - please provide scriptural reference - your own - without selectively reading mine - to justify why you think these people who are not acting in accordance with Quran, in your opinion are acting in accordance with it.

 

If you do intend to use my post, please quote all of it and explain why you think this justifies their behaviour point by point instead of just highlighting the bits that suit you.

[boyfriday]

Indeed, some would say a victory for Sharia Law.

 

But that's back to my original point-does sharia law forbid the education of females?

[maxmaximus]

You didn't though did you, you took the bits that applied to your opinion and ignored other bits that went against it, then had the nerve to say that I don't understand interpretation and opinion.

 

You haven't got a different 'interpretation' of the verses I offered, you have read them selectively, these are two completely different things.

 

 

I read your quotes and your explanation of the quotes, they clearly state that a Muslim can fight a war against aggressors and should defend innocent people that are being persecuted, your quote even states Allah would frown upon a Muslim that doesn’t defend the innocent.

Your quotes even explain that Allah will help them to defeat their enemies.

 

Your whole argument is based on your inability to accept that some Muslims think they at war with the West, and because they think they at war, they have the justification from the Quran to fight the war. I don’t need to post any passages from the Quran because the passages you quoted explain this.

 

Explain under what circumstances a Muslim can fight a war and what actions they can take during this war, because it seems in your world a Muslim isn’t a Muslim is they resort to violance and fighting wars, which is very odd when one of the passages you quoted says Allah will help them to defeat their enemies.

[Plain Talker]

But that's back to my original point-does sharia law forbid the education of females?

 

No, Islam actually obligates males AND females to receive an education to the level they are capable of.

 

So, my nephew who is severely learning disabled would/should be educated according to his capacity to learn, and I am obligated to be educated to the level to the level I am able to achieve.

[Plain Talker]

Yes, no problem. But it doesn't represent a failure of sharia law if the Taliban can't read or write properly.

 

They've made a habit of going around killing people saying it's because they didn't behave according to sharia, without telling anyone which bits of the code they've broken.

 

Which pretty much sums up the accusations I have levelled against the Taliban all along, BF...

 

In Islam women are permitted to vote, reject an unsuitable husband, they are permitted to own property, inherit, be educated, instigate a divorce if the husband is treating them wrongly... they can attend the mosque if they choose.

 

Women also have obligations. They are obligated to pay their zakat (charity, or the "tithe" on their wealth) they are obligated to make their prayer (subject to certain exemptions) go on Hajj (pilgrimage)

 

As I have said before, the taliban are nothing but bloodthirsty pillocks who are frightened to death that their soft little whatnots will shrivel even more, if a woman gets even an Iota of learning, and is able to counter the garbage they spout.

 

Keep people subjugated by denying them the opportunity to learn, and you will keep your puny grip on your puny power. Isn't that right Mr Tal E. Ban?

[flamingjimmy]

Fighting should be undertaken when the innocent are in harms way, and not to do so is frowned upon by allah, but the context is always strictly when either your life or the life of an innocent is in danger;

Islamists get around this very easily, they simply don't consider the citizens of western democracy as innocent, because we elected the governments that meddle in their countries.

 

 

No one is pretending that war is not prescribed in Islam, only that it is strictly in the context of self defence, as the following verses say, if you are attacked, defend yourself, if they offer peace, accept it, but if they are using that peace as a 'ruse', you are permitted to fight again;

That very last part is very important, it means that Islamists can claim anyone is at war with them, and that the peace is a ruse.

 

 

 

Even in these cases it is better to try to avoid fighting, in the following verses believers are told to prepare a 'show' of force to try to 'scare' the enemy into submission before the fighting actually starts.

Oh right, so an explicit advocation of the act of trying to terrorise your enemy into capitulating politically to you.

 

In fact I do understand that very well, but I am defending 'Muslims' because many posters/people in general (again I apologise for 'lumping you in with these people) do get them mixed up with extremists, and I have spoken to many Muslims themselves who are loath to use the term 'Muslim' in relation to these people.

You are not the arbiter of who is and who is not a muslim, neither are the Muslims you have spoken to, nor are you the arbiter of which acts are and are not Islamic.

 

This, rather is one of the biggest problems with religion, if you'll believe things that a man rode a winged horse to heaven and that there are demons and jinns all around us, or that we were fashioned by some celestial dictator out of a lump of clay then you'll believe anything. And it is so very easy to interpret these barbaric ancient texts pretty much any way you like.

 

So I'm using Muslim in this specific way because it differentiates between the actual meaning of the word (being one who submits to the will of Allah) and the common usage of the word (being essentially anyone who associates themselves with Islam). I will return to the oft used example I give that a paedophile would consider themself to have 'normal' sexual urges - just because one associates with something it doesn't make it so, I am using Islams own definition of the word

What an absurd analogy: a paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children, there may be minor debate about exactly where the line is that someone becomes an adult but there is not wiggle room for interpretation that actually having sex with 6 year olds is ok.

 

In contrast a Muslim is someone who submits to the will of god. Exactly what the will of god is is open to interpretation and has been debated fiercely as long as Islam has existed, there is no consensus. There are muslims out there who would argue until they're blue in the face that they are the true muslims and that westernised liberal muslims are not.

 

The unfortunate thing (and a problem for all religions) is that it's all nonsense based on the vague ramblings of an expansionist militaristic tribe of conquerors from over 1000 years ago so there is no way of determining who is right.

[PaliRichard]

I read your quotes and your explanation of the quotes, they clearly state that a Muslim can fight a war against aggressors and should defend innocent people that are being persecuted, your quote even states Allah would frown upon a Muslim that doesn’t defend the innocent.

Your quotes even explain that Allah will help them to defeat their enemies.

 

Your whole argument is based on your inability to accept that some Muslims think they at war with the West, and because they think they at war, they have the justification from the Quran to fight the war. I don’t need to post any passages from the Quran because the passages you quoted explain this.

 

Explain under what circumstances a Muslim can fight a war and what actions they can take during this war, because it seems in your world a Muslim isn’t a Muslim is they resort to violance and fighting wars, which is very odd when one of the passages you quoted says Allah will help them to defeat their enemies.

 

I've got a good idea, why don't you completely ignore my previous post.

 

Re. the bold bit, had you actually read my post you would realise that I never claimed this.

 

I'm all for a debate but when you selectively answer posts using only the criteria that backs up your argument and ignoring the main point the other poster is trying to make it seems a little pointless.

 

So I invite you once more to use the Quran to back up your claim or respond to my post point by point so as not to ignore the bits that don't fit in with your opinion.

 

I have already shown how the actions undertaken by Islamist terrorists do not fit in with the Quran's instructions on war, I do not need to repeat this, you just need to address it.

[PaliRichard]

Islamists get around this very easily, they simply don't consider the citizens of western democracy as innocent, because we elected the governments that meddle in their countries.

 

 

That very last part is very important, it means that Islamists can claim anyone is at war with them, and that the peace is a ruse.

 

 

 

Oh right, so an explicit advocation of the act of trying to terrorise your enemy into capitulating politically to you.

 

You are not the arbiter of who is and who is not a muslim, neither are the Muslims you have spoken to, nor are you the arbiter of which acts are and are not Islamic.

 

This, rather is one of the biggest problems with religion, if you'll believe things that a man rode a winged horse to heaven and that there are demons and jinns all around us, or that we were fashioned by some celestial dictator out of a lump of clay then you'll believe anything. And it is so very easy to interpret these barbaric ancient texts pretty much any way you like.

 

What an absurd analogy: a paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children, there may be minor debate about exactly where the line is that someone becomes an adult but there is not wiggle room for interpretation that actually having sex with 6 year olds is ok.

 

In contrast a Muslim is someone who submits to the will of god. Exactly what the will of god is is open to interpretation and has been debated fiercely as long as Islam has existed, there is no consensus. There are muslims out there who would argue until they're blue in the face that they are the true muslims and that westernised liberal muslims are not.

 

The unfortunate thing (and a problem for all religions) is that it's all nonsense based on the vague ramblings of an expansionist militaristic tribe of conquerors from over 1000 years ago so there is no way of determining who is right.

 

I will point this out once so we are clear.

 

I have already made plain to you that because of previous statements you have made regarding religious people I have no intention whatsoever of engaging with you.

 

I'm not the only religious person you have upset on these forums, reply or don't, but this is the last message I will address to you.