Islamic Discussion Thread ٥: Free Tajweed, Absolutely Halaal

[Diahon]

yes, the use of insults to mock and belittle your enemies in lieu of or accompanied by violent physical activity as convenient is a thing

The enemies who actually fight them also use Daesh

"'There is a word in Newspeak,' said Syme, 'I don't know whether you know it: duckspeak, to quack like a duck. It is one of those interesting words that have two contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it is abuse, applied to someone you agree with, it is praise.'"

[Dowaesk]

Oop. This is true. Tamil supporter of DAESH.

Really? He was Tamil? That's a surprise. Most Tamils are Hindu, and the Muslim population is actually smaller than even the Christian population; the only smaller ones being the Jains and Atheists.

Nop. Lot of Muslims among the Tamils. More than Christians.

And also. Since "Tamil (in other words Sri Lanka)" and "Muslim" and "Christian" was mentioned in the same post. I'll say; You might think that Muslim-Christian relations in Sri Lanka are bad due to the Easter Bombings by ISIS. But its really not. Muslim Christian relations was hurt a lot by the bombings, but nop. The two minorities actually do very good together. Having a corrupt Authoritarian Buddhist government ruling over it and with Tamil Secularists in the North dreaming of building a Hindu favouring state, Hindus, Muslims and Christians had it rough. I can provide a whole list of both Sri Lankan and Tamil genocides, which for some reason never got any attention from the West.

Felt like mentioning: The first Suicide bombing attack operation was conducted by the LTTE. Whom were Hindus. And the main ideology of LTTE was Secularism. Terrorism is not something only special to Islam.

[Lower Nubia]

Really? He was Tamil? That's a surprise. Most Tamils are Hindu, and the Muslim population is actually smaller than even the Christian population; the only smaller ones being the Jains and Atheists.

Nop. Lot of Muslims among the Tamils. More than Christians.

And also. Since "Tamil (in other words Sri Lanka)" and "Muslim" and "Christian" was mentioned in the same post. I'll say; You might think that Muslim-Christian relations in Sri Lanka are bad due to the Easter Bombings by ISIS. But its really not. Muslim Christian relations was hurt a lot by the bombings, but nop. The two minorities actually do very good together. Having a corrupt Authoritarian Buddhist government ruling over it and with Tamil Secularists in the North dreaming of building a Hindu favouring state, Hindus, Muslims and Christians had it rough. I can provide a whole list of both Sri Lankan and Tamil genocides, which for some reason never got any attention from the West.

Felt like mentioning: The first Suicide bombing attack operation was conducted by the LTTE. Whom were Hindus. And the main ideology of LTTE was Secularism. Terrorism is not something only special to Islam.

It may not be unique, but Islam has the special quality to be swayed to violence.

Don’t present false equivalence here that they’re all the “same”.

[Immortan Khan]

Really? He was Tamil? That's a surprise. Most Tamils are Hindu, and the Muslim population is actually smaller than even the Christian population; the only smaller ones being the Jains and Atheists.

Nop. Lot of Muslims among the Tamils. More than Christians.

No there isn't. Tamil Nadu's demographics are public. In Sri Lanka Tamil Muslims are basically non-existant.

[Lower Nubia]

Nop. Lot of Muslims among the Tamils. More than Christians.

No there isn't. Tamil Nadu's demographics are public. In Sri Lanka Tamil Muslims are basically non-existant.

Yeah.

“ In 1981, about eighty percent of Sri Lankan Tamils were Hindus who followed the Shaiva sect. The rest were mostly Roman Catholics who converted after the Portuguese conquest of Jaffna Kingdom.”

[Insaanistan]

Nop. Lot of Muslims among the Tamils. More than Christians.

No there isn't. Tamil Nadu's demographics are public. In Sri Lanka Tamil Muslims are basically non-existant.

Most Muslims are referred to as “Moors” in Sri Lanka: ethnic Tamils who have tried to distance themselves from Tamil identity due to it being associated with non-Muslim faiths.

The “Moor” distinction came from the Portuguese, and has since been adopted by Tamil Muslims themselves. They even speak Tamil.

[A m e n r i a]

Nop. Lot of Muslims among the Tamils. More than Christians.

And also. Since "Tamil (in other words Sri Lanka)" and "Muslim" and "Christian" was mentioned in the same post. I'll say; You might think that Muslim-Christian relations in Sri Lanka are bad due to the Easter Bombings by ISIS. But its really not. Muslim Christian relations was hurt a lot by the bombings, but nop. The two minorities actually do very good together. Having a corrupt Authoritarian Buddhist government ruling over it and with Tamil Secularists in the North dreaming of building a Hindu favouring state, Hindus, Muslims and Christians had it rough. I can provide a whole list of both Sri Lankan and Tamil genocides, which for some reason never got any attention from the West.

Felt like mentioning: The first Suicide bombing attack operation was conducted by the LTTE. Whom were Hindus. And the main ideology of LTTE was Secularism. Terrorism is not something only special to Islam.

It may not be unique, but Islam has the special quality to be swayed to violence.

Don’t present false equivalence here that they’re all the “same”.

Not in reality, no.

[Lower Nubia]

It may not be unique, but Islam has the special quality to be swayed to violence.

Don’t present false equivalence here that they’re all the “same”.

Not in reality, no.

Yes, in reality. Had this conversation already. Here's the quote:

"Christianity is debated between pacifism, and self defence on an individual basis. The truth of an action lies between these two. Islam is debated between self-defence and a retaliatory strike/offensive strike. That’s already fundamentally different. Christians are never taught to retaliate force with force, Muhammad did retaliate with force. When defeated, he then sought revenge/avengement and sent an army north. In this situation Christians are to seek forgiveness without retaliation in kind, Muhammad failed to forgive here, and retaliated out of avengement."

This is why it's easier. You can't make Jesus a violent man, you can make Muhammad.

[Immortan Khan]

No there isn't. Tamil Nadu's demographics are public. In Sri Lanka Tamil Muslims are basically non-existant.

Most Muslims are referred to as “Moors” in Sri Lanka: ethnic Tamils who have tried to distance themselves from Tamil identity due to it being associated with non-Muslim faiths.

The “Moor” distinction came from the Portuguese, and has since been adopted by Tamil Muslims themselves. They even speak Tamil.

Sri Lankan Moors are not Tamils.

[Insaanistan]

Most Muslims are referred to as “Moors” in Sri Lanka: ethnic Tamils who have tried to distance themselves from Tamil identity due to it being associated with non-Muslim faiths.

The “Moor” distinction came from the Portuguese, and has since been adopted by Tamil Muslims themselves. They even speak Tamil.

Sri Lankan Moors are not Tamils.

“Even though most Sri Lankan Muslims are Sunni, it is a diverse community, with some following the mystical form of Islam, Sufism. Linguistically, most have Tamil as their mother tongue, often leading them to be categorised as part of the island's Tamil minority, alongside Hindus and Christians.” https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... peNfcECXuf

[Ansarullah]

It may not be unique, but Islam has the special quality to be swayed to violence.

Don’t present false equivalence here that they’re all the “same”.

Terrorism, in certain circumstances, is halal. So is offensive war if it's a pre-emptive strike.
This is coming from a Muslim.

[Diarcesia]

Nop. Lot of Muslims among the Tamils. More than Christians.

And also. Since "Tamil (in other words Sri Lanka)" and "Muslim" and "Christian" was mentioned in the same post. I'll say; You might think that Muslim-Christian relations in Sri Lanka are bad due to the Easter Bombings by ISIS. But its really not. Muslim Christian relations was hurt a lot by the bombings, but nop. The two minorities actually do very good together. Having a corrupt Authoritarian Buddhist government ruling over it and with Tamil Secularists in the North dreaming of building a Hindu favouring state, Hindus, Muslims and Christians had it rough. I can provide a whole list of both Sri Lankan and Tamil genocides, which for some reason never got any attention from the West.

Felt like mentioning: The first Suicide bombing attack operation was conducted by the LTTE. Whom were Hindus. And the main ideology of LTTE was Secularism. Terrorism is not something only special to Islam.

It may not be unique, but Islam has the special quality to be swayed to violence.

Don’t present false equivalence here that they’re all the “same”.

I daresay Christian theology is more of the exception in that than the rule. Personally, I can't take Islam having a 'special quality to be swayed to violence' seriously when we have historical examples of Viking, Mongol, and Nazi brutality to compare.

[Insaanistan]

It may not be unique, but Islam has the special quality to be swayed to violence.

Don’t present false equivalence here that they’re all the “same”.

Terrorism, in certain circumstances, is halal. So is offensive war if it's a pre-emptive strike. Denying either of these is stupid.
This is coming from a Muslim.

There’s literally a Qur’ânic verse about how to punish terrorists…

[Ansarullah]

There’s literally a Qur’ânic verse about how to punish terrorists…

There's also a Quranic verse that says to punish homosexuals (and with the aid of the Hadith, we can easily find out the "punishment" is death).
That would count as state terrorism according to most people, at best they'd call it an infringement on human rights, and it's VERY easy to use that as a justification for non-state terrorism against homosexuals (like Omar Mateen).
Just one example.

[Lower Nubia]

It may not be unique, but Islam has the special quality to be swayed to violence.

Don’t present false equivalence here that they’re all the “same”.

Terrorism, in certain circumstances, is halal. So is offensive war if it's a pre-emptive strike.
This is coming from a Muslim.

I didn't say terrorism. It's easier to sway a Muslim to violence for a cause thanks to historical precedence. Terrorism is not acceptable in Islam, conquest is. Conquest is violent.

I daresay Christian theology is more of the exception in that than the rule. Personally, I can't take Islam having a 'special quality to be swayed to violence' seriously when we have historical examples of Viking, Mongol, and Nazi brutality to compare.

I quoted the very life of Muhammad as promoting a violent solution, you quote the lives 700 years, 1200 years, and 1900 years after Christ? As if they have bearing on Christianity. I realise what you mean now. Secular example is more violent, but it is secular, we're discussing religion. Muhammad called for "forgiveness" and then flatly ignored that and retaliated. I'd call that special that such a flagrant disregard was acceptable and offered no consequences. That's before some of the largest conquests in history with the Caliphs is considered too.

When Peter cut the ear of the Roman soldier who was arresting Christ, Christ healed the ear, and rebuked Peter When the Romans and Jews tortured and killed Jesus, were his words, "retaliate!" or "forgive them"?

[Ansarullah]

Terrorism is not acceptable in Islam

Based off?

[Lower Nubia]

Terrorism is not acceptable in Islam

Based off?

I'm simply not getting into that particular conversation. I don't need it to show a state of violence. Muhammad's retaliation against the Ghassanids is enough.

[Kumarinadu]

Terrorism, in certain circumstances, is halal. So is offensive war if it's a pre-emptive strike. Denying either of these is stupid.
This is coming from a Muslim.

There’s literally a Qur’ânic verse about how to punish terrorists…

I thought that one was about highwaymen. I mean you can kind of interpret that as terrorists I guess.

[Chess Reloaded]

Terrorism, in certain circumstances, is halal. So is offensive war if it's a pre-emptive strike. Denying either of these is stupid.
This is coming from a Muslim.

There’s literally a Qur’ânic verse about how to punish terrorists…

That's incorrect

[Ansarullah]

I'm simply not getting into that particular conversation.

Then why say that in a reply to me?

[Chess Reloaded]

There’s literally a Qur’ânic verse about how to punish terrorists…

There's also a Quranic verse that says to punish homosexuals (and with the aid of the Hadith, we can easily find out the "punishment" is death).
That would count as state terrorism according to most people, at best they'd call it an infringement on human rights, and it's VERY easy to use that as a justification for non-state terrorism against homosexuals (like Omar Mateen).
Just one example.

The authenticity of the Hadiths about the punishment for homosexuals have been disputed by experts on hadiths, and I don't mean liberals, I mean Ibn Hazm and Sulayman al-'Alwan, both of whom suggest the punishment for homosexual intercourse be the same as illicit heterosexual intercourse. There is no ayah in the Quran afaik about juridical punishment of homosexuality although Allah punishing it is there

[Insaanistan]

There’s literally a Qur’ânic verse about how to punish terrorists…

There's also a Quranic verse that says to punish homosexuals (and with the aid of the Hadith, we can easily find out the "punishment" is death).
That would count as state terrorism according to most people, at best they'd call it an infringement on human rights, and it's VERY easy to use that as a justification for non-state terrorism against homosexuals (like Omar Mateen).
Just one example.

There is no verse that actually prescribed punishment for them, actually.

Unless your Qur’ân has 115 surahs.

[Diarcesia]

Terrorism, in certain circumstances, is halal. So is offensive war if it's a pre-emptive strike.
This is coming from a Muslim.

I didn't say terrorism. It's easier to sway a Muslim to violence for a cause thanks to historical precedence. Terrorism is not acceptable in Islam, conquest is. Conquest is violent.

I daresay Christian theology is more of the exception in that than the rule. Personally, I can't take Islam having a 'special quality to be swayed to violence' seriously when we have historical examples of Viking, Mongol, and Nazi brutality to compare.

I quoted the very life of Muhammad as promoting a violent solution, you quote the lives 700 years, 1200 years, and 1900 years after Christ? As if they have bearing on Christianity. I realise what you mean now. Secular example is more violent, but it is secular, we're discussing religion. Muhammad called for "forgiveness" and then flatly ignored that and retaliated. I'd call that special that such a flagrant disregard was acceptable and offered no consequences. That's before some of the largest conquests in history with the Caliphs is considered too.

When Peter cut the ear of the Roman soldier who was arresting Christ, Christ healed the ear, and rebuked Peter When the Romans and Jews tortured and killed Jesus, were his words, "retaliate!" or "forgive them"?

Okay I see what you're saying. I agree that the Quran can be more easily interpreted by Muslims to justify violence. Again, this is different from saying that Muslims are more violent because they are Muslims.

[Chess Reloaded]

I'm simply not getting into that particular conversation.

Then why say that in a reply to me?

Going to deep into this topic is against site rules, this is a very, very bad medium for the discussion of the various rulings related to jihad, though it's an interesting topic

[Ansarullah]

The authenticity of the Hadith against homosexuals has been disputed by experts on hadiths

Source? Never heard this before.

Ibn Hazm and Sulayman al-'Alwan, both of whom suggest the punishment for homosexual intercourse be the same as illicit heterosexual intercourse

So death?

There is no ayah in the Quran afaik about juridical punishment of homosexuality although Allah punishing it is there

We don't need an Ayah. We need a Surah establishing, in some way (metaphorical or literal) that it is Haram, and the Hadith will establish the punishment.