Islamic Discussion Thread ٥: Free Tajweed, Absolutely Halaal

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Eh, I've had to deal with the same conditions for all my life, it's nothing new. The only way it will improve is when we finally manage to remove Islam from Iran... or you know, remove the Islamic Republic, as that's both easier and a possible first step.

And make things worse? No, the only solution is to make it a real Islamic republic, not an "Islamic" republic.

What practical policy difference would that entail?

[North German Realm]

Eh, I've had to deal with the same conditions for all my life, it's nothing new. The only way it will improve is when we finally manage to remove Islam from Iran... or you know, remove the Islamic Republic, as that's both easier and a possible first step.

And make things worse? No, the only solution is to make it a real Islamic republic, not an "Islamic" republic.

Thank you very much, but no. The only thing that could possibly make what we live in worse is a "real" Islamic Republic like ISIS. I, like most -though, sadly, not all- of Iranians, prefer to have a secular, civilized government back instead.

What practical policy difference would that entail?

Ignore that, he's just performing the regular "Not True Islamsman" routine.

[Samudera Darussalam]

And make things worse? No, the only solution is to make it a real Islamic republic, not an "Islamic" republic.

I don't think it would be practical in Iran. Aside from the fact that many Iranians are not religious nowadays, what defines a true "Islamic" Republic?

Eh, I've had to deal with the same conditions for all my life, it's nothing new. The only way it will improve is when we finally manage to remove Islam from Iran... or you know, remove the Islamic Republic, as that's both easier and a possible first step.

Well, I just hope that it happens gradually, not the mess that we have with the Arab Spring. Syria and some areas in North Africa are currently chaotic thanks to that.

[A m e n r i a]

And make things worse? No, the only solution is to make it a real Islamic republic, not an "Islamic" republic.

What practical policy difference would that entail?

A lot, actually.

And make things worse? No, the only solution is to make it a real Islamic republic, not an "Islamic" republic.

Thank you very much, but no. The only thing that could possibly make what we live in worse is a "real" Islamic Republic like ISIS. I, like most -though, sadly, not all- of Iranians, prefer to have a secular, civilized government back instead.

What practical policy difference would that entail?

Ignore that, he's just performing the regular "Not True Islamsman" routine.

You do realize ISIS is the opposite of everything Islam is, right? How could those heretics be considered peaceful at all?

[Hirota]

You do realize ISIS is the opposite of everything Islam is, right? How could those heretics be considered peaceful at all?

There are plenty of Imans who will say ISIS is the one true form of Islam. How does an outsider decide which khutba-wearing spiderman pointing at another khutba-wearing spiderman is correct?

[A m e n r i a]

You do realize ISIS is the opposite of everything Islam is, right? How could those heretics be considered peaceful at all?

There are plenty of Imans who will say ISIS is the one true form of Islam. How does an outsider decide which khutba-wearing spiderman pointing at another khutba-wearing spiderman is correct?

I know this isn't much to go by, but try the ones who don't contradict themselves.

[North German Realm]

You do realize ISIS is the opposite of everything Islam is, right? How could those heretics be considered peaceful at all?

I realize you're more used to idiots who've never even opened the Qoran even once in their lives, much less read it through and through, but you're talking to a former Muslim here, and most people on this thread are fellow Muslims, ex-Muslims, or people with a brain in their heads. You can stop pretending your religion has anything to do with peace. Islam is, and has always been, about domination, force, and submission (That one is, *chuckles*, even in the name).
(Whether or not ISIS is Islamic or not, of course, not a point of debate. I'm not willing to pretend they're not Muslims to not hurt your fee-fees.)

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

What practical policy difference would that entail?

A lot, actually.

Thank you very much, but no. The only thing that could possibly make what we live in worse is a "real" Islamic Republic like ISIS. I, like most -though, sadly, not all- of Iranians, prefer to have a secular, civilized government back instead.


Ignore that, he's just performing the regular "Not True Islamsman" routine.

You do realize ISIS is the opposite of everything Islam is, right? How could those heretics be considered peaceful at all?

Can you please outline some of the practical policy differences?

[A m e n r i a]

You do realize ISIS is the opposite of everything Islam is, right? How could those heretics be considered peaceful at all?

I realize you're more used to idiots who've never even opened the Qoran even once in their lives, much less read it through and through, but you're talking to a former Muslim here, and most people on this thread are fellow Muslims, ex-Muslims, or people with a brain in their heads. You can stop pretending your religion has anything to do with peace. Islam is, and has always been, about domination, force, and submission (That one is, *chuckles*, even in the name).
(Whether or not ISIS is Islamic or not, of course, not a point of debate. I'm not willing to pretend they're not Muslims to not hurt your fee-fees.)

Okay, let's stop here before we start going in circles again. And this is coming from a bad guy who's denounced good and is used to being the subject of divine wrath.

A lot, actually.



You do realize ISIS is the opposite of everything Islam is, right? How could those heretics be considered peaceful at all?

Can you please outline some of the practical policy differences?

Our Iranian friend here wouldn't even be threatened with lashes in a real Islamic nation because (I assume) he's a dzimmi, and thus his rights are protected. If he isn't, he would be punished only for the crime he actually committed, not because of his faith, or lack thereof. Tolerance and compassion, remember?

[Marxist Germany]

What practical policy difference would that entail?

A lot, actually.

Thank you very much, but no. The only thing that could possibly make what we live in worse is a "real" Islamic Republic like ISIS. I, like most -though, sadly, not all- of Iranians, prefer to have a secular, civilized government back instead.


Ignore that, he's just performing the regular "Not True Islamsman" routine.

You do realize ISIS is the opposite of everything Islam is, right? How could those heretics be considered peaceful at all?

ISIS is islam in its purest form.

[A m e n r i a]

A lot, actually.



You do realize ISIS is the opposite of everything Islam is, right? How could those heretics be considered peaceful at all?

ISIS is islam in its purest form.

Except it contradicts Islam's pacifist nature.

[North German Realm]

ISIS is islam in its purest form.

Except it contradicts Islam's pacifist nature.

Islam literally doesn't have a pacifist nature though. Or are you claiming Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali weren't Muslims?

[Kowani]

Except it contradicts Islam's pacifist nature.

Islam literally doesn't have a pacifist nature though. Or are you claiming Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali weren't Muslims?

[Samudera Darussalam]

Image

Memri is a meme TV station, change my mind.

ISIS is islam in its purest form.

No, they are not.

[North German Realm]

Image

Memri is a meme TV station, change my mind.

ISIS is islam in its purest form.

No, they are not.

Oh it is, but even the broken clock says the correct time twice a day. (And maybe not "Purest" form, but it is Islam as Muhammad intended it.)

[Samudera Darussalam]

Islam literally doesn't have a pacifist nature though. Or are you claiming Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali weren't Muslims?

Islam, like many other religions, has a violent history. Though, I believe that in the case of Prophet Muhammad, it's more of self-defense. You do know that before the Hijra, warfare is not known to Islam, I suppose?

Oh it is, but even the broken clock says the correct time twice a day. (And maybe not "Purest" form, but it is Islam as Muhammad intended it.)

I'm not a master of Islamic law, but doesn't the Islamic war ethics prohibit the murder of women, children, and the elderly, that I believe was done by Daesh?
“Do not kill any old person, any child, or any woman.” (Abu Dawud)

And if Daesh believe that their terror attacks were/are part of their warfare, they are crossing this hadith:
“Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship.” (Musnad of Ibn Hanbal)

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Islam literally doesn't have a pacifist nature though. Or are you claiming Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali weren't Muslims?

Islam, like many other religions, has a violent history. Though, I believe that in the case of Prophet Muhammad, it's more of self-defense. You do know that before the Hijra, warfare is not known to Islam, I suppose?

Oh it is, but even the broken clock says the correct time twice a day. (And maybe not "Purest" form, but it is Islam as Muhammad intended it.)

I'm not a master of Islamic law, but doesn't the Islamic war ethics prohibit the murder of women, children, and the elderly, that I believe was done by Daesh?
“Do not kill any old person, any child, or any woman.” (Abu Dawud)
“Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship.” (Musnad of Ibn Hanbal)

Does that mean adult men who aren't in Church are fair game?

[Tetradimensional Overworld]

Islamophobes can suck my pp.

[Samudera Darussalam]

Does that mean adult men who aren't in Church are fair game?

I need to learn about the rulings about that. However, from what I can gather it's likely to be said that the killings of non-combatants are not condoned. From the earlier hadith that I cite during my short research, I find this:

During a war, the Prophet saw the corpse of a woman lying on the ground and observed: “She was not fighting. How then came she to be killed?”
From this statement of the prophet, jurists have drawn the principle that those who are noncombatants should not be killed during or after the war.

[Hirota]

There are plenty of Imans who will say ISIS is the one true form of Islam. How does an outsider decide which khutba-wearing spiderman pointing at another khutba-wearing spiderman is correct?

I know this isn't much to go by, but try the ones who don't contradict themselves.

It's fine - I appreciate that's a nearly impossible question to answer. I would like to think most Muslims would feel the same as you.

[North German Realm]

Islam literally doesn't have a pacifist nature though. Or are you claiming Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali weren't Muslims?

Islam, like many other religions, has a violent history. Though, I believe that in the case of Prophet Muhammad, it's more of self-defense. You do know that before the Hijra, warfare is not known to Islam, I suppose?

Oh it is, but even the broken clock says the correct time twice a day. (And maybe not "Purest" form, but it is Islam as Muhammad intended it.)

I'm not a master of Islamic law, but doesn't the Islamic war ethics prohibit the murder of women, children, and the elderly, that I believe was done by Daesh?
“Do not kill any old person, any child, or any woman.” (Abu Dawud)

And if Daesh believe that their terror attacks were/are part of their warfare, they are crossing this hadith:
“Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship.” (Musnad of Ibn Hanbal)

Sure. Prior to Muhammad escaping Mecca with his tail between his legs, there was no warfare in Islam. I'm sure you know that almost none of the important, detailed commands of the Islamic Fiqh were around prior to Muhammad's escape to Yathrib. (See: The Macci and Madani verses of the Quran). That there was no warfare in Islam prior to Muhammad's exodus isn't necessarily relevant, especially considering that prior to Muhammad's exodus, Islam wasn't supposed to "form" a State around its Ummat, and thus war would be meaningless.

And uh, Muhammad actively did all of the above multiple times. So did Umar, Uthman, and Ali. The massacre of Zoroastrians in their Atashkadehs was famous for the number of people killed in every attack, during the Arab invasion of Persia (and that's not even mentioning the lack of regard Muhammad's religion has for those not part of "The Book".)

[Samudera Darussalam]

Sure. Prior to Muhammad escaping Mecca with his tail between his legs, there was no warfare in Islam. I'm sure you know that almost none of the important, detailed commands of the Islamic Fiqh were around prior to Muhammad's escape to Yathrib. (See: The Macci and Madani verses of the Quran). That there was no warfare in Islam prior to Muhammad's exodus isn't necessarily relevant, especially considering that prior to Muhammad's exodus, Islam wasn't supposed to "form" a State around its Ummat, and thus war would be meaningless.

Fair, though I still consider it to be relevant.

And uh, Muhammad actively did all of the above multiple times. So did Umar, Uthman, and Ali. The massacre of Zoroastrians in their Atashkadehs was famous for the number of people killed in every attack, during the Arab invasion of Persia (and that's not even mentioning the lack of regard Muhammad's religion has for those not part of "The Book".)

Muslims are not perfect, even the Prophet himself. However, I have yet to find about Muhammad SAW's doing the killings of women, children, the elderly, or of the people in places of worship, except if do you mean it with the case with the Jews of Medina?

[Terra 2250]

Sure. Prior to Muhammad escaping Mecca with his tail between his legs, there was no warfare in Islam. I'm sure you know that almost none of the important, detailed commands of the Islamic Fiqh were around prior to Muhammad's escape to Yathrib. (See: The Macci and Madani verses of the Quran). That there was no warfare in Islam prior to Muhammad's exodus isn't necessarily relevant, especially considering that prior to Muhammad's exodus, Islam wasn't supposed to "form" a State around its Ummat, and thus war would be meaningless.

Fair, though I still consider it to be relevant.

And uh, Muhammad actively did all of the above multiple times. So did Umar, Uthman, and Ali. The massacre of Zoroastrians in their Atashkadehs was famous for the number of people killed in every attack, during the Arab invasion of Persia (and that's not even mentioning the lack of regard Muhammad's religion has for those not part of "The Book".)

Muslims are not perfect, even the Prophet himself. However, I have yet to find about Muhammad SAW's doing the killings of women, children, the elderly, or of the people in places of worship, except if do you mean it with the case with the Jews of Medina?

Imagine all of the Germans in the USA killing every non-German they see. Would the US government just shut up? That's the case. No one is perfect, even our prophet. Only Allah is perfect.

[North German Realm]

And uh, Muhammad actively did all of the above multiple times. So did Umar, Uthman, and Ali. The massacre of Zoroastrians in their Atashkadehs was famous for the number of people killed in every attack, during the Arab invasion of Persia (and that's not even mentioning the lack of regard Muhammad's religion has for those not part of "The Book".)

Muslims are not perfect, even the Prophet himself. However, I have yet to find about Muhammad SAW's doing the killings of women, children, the elderly, or of the people in places of worship, except if do you mean it with the case with the Jews of Medina?

I was more referring to Banu Qurayza's massacre where all males were murdered and all females sold to slavery, but sure, the Murder of the Jews of Medina also works, if you want.

See, I've mentioned this before, I'm not sure on which thread, but I'll explain it again. Muhammad the man isn't perfect. Nobody is. Muhammad the Prophet, however, has to be. Apart from his Ismat (infallibility) he literally acts as the living (well, historical) example of the "True Muslim". If he does something, that means that's OK for any Muslim to do. Exceptions apply, sure (him marrying 20 women and girls but then forbidding his own wives to marry after him being one. Though there are theories on that, but I won't talk of them at the risk of the banhammer, as Muhammad's sexual and marital life is kind of a taboo here), but his conduct is literally the example Muslims follow. Suggesting "Muhammad wasn't perfect" doesn't work, because if Muhammad wasn't perfect, then you couldn't follow his example.

[Samudera Darussalam]

I was more referring to Banu Qurayza's massacre where all males were murdered and all females sold to slavery, but sure, the Murder of the Jews of Medina also works, if you want.

By the "Jews of Medina", I actually refer to the Banu Qurayza.
I should make it clear before.
However, the decision of collective punishment was decided by one man of Banu Aws and not the Prophet himself, as probably you have already knew. The tribe was accused of treachery during the Battle of the Pitch, and it's said that the punishment for the kind of offense was acceptable in that era.

See, I've mentioned this before, I'm not sure on which thread, but I'll explain it again. Muhammad the man isn't perfect. Nobody is. Muhammad the Prophet, however, has to be. Apart from his Ismat (infallibility) he literally acts as the living (well, historical) example of the "True Muslim". If he does something, that means that's OK for any Muslim to do. Exceptions apply, sure (him marrying 20 women and girls but then forbidding his own wives to marry after him being one. Though there are theories on that, but I won't talk of them at the risk of the banhammer, as Muhammad's sexual and marital life is kind of a taboo here), but his conduct is literally the example Muslims follow. Suggesting "Muhammad wasn't perfect" doesn't work, because if Muhammad wasn't perfect, then you couldn't follow his example.

Fair, my unfortunate choice of word. Muhammad SAW as a man is not perfect, neither are his followers. The concept of Ismat, at least about what I have learned about, doesn't really suggest that he has to be perfect, free from any error about irreligious matters. He may commit errors (though not major sins), but afterwards he may repents and God has already forgave his past and future deeds.