Insomniac

I see now that it is you who have failed to study political Islam. Orthodox Muslims believe that the Quranic commands are universal and thus applicable for all times. Jamal Badawi, a popular Muslims apologist, claims, “Actual armed Jihad is permissible under two conditions alone: one is for self-defense, and the other is for fighting against oppression.” Although, Badawi is quite accurate in describing the conditions of armed Jihad in Islam, what he fails to say that the definitions of “self defense” and “oppression” are much broader than usually understood. Many orthodox Muslims believe that if a nation’s leaders do not acknowledge the rule of Islam, then those rulers are “oppressors” and thus a legitimate target for War. Many Muslims argue that America is a cultural aggressor by exporting its Hollywood value all over the world, and thus any fight against Americans is done in self defense. Therefore, there is no end to how a Muslim group can define “self-defense” and “oppression” and thus find an Islamic justification for violence.

Support:
The oldest biography of the prophet Muhammad was written by Ibn Ishaq in the second century of the Islamic ear and was later edited Ibn Hishim in the third century. This work was translated into English under the title The Life of Muhammad by A. Guillaume and published by Oxford University Press in 1955. The following accounts are some of the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad and his close companions found in this biography.

In the constitution of Medina, which the prophet wrote when he an his followers migrated from Mecca in the year 622, we read, “A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer… Believers are friends one to the other to the exclusion of outsiders… The believers must avenge the blood of one another shed in the way of God.”
The first in the series of assassinations that the prophet ordered was an old Jewish man named Ibnu’l-Ashraf. His crime was writing poetry against Muslims. “The apostle said, ‘who will rid me of Ibnu’l-Ashraf?’” One of his followers volunteered and said, “I will deal with him for you, O apostle of God, I will kill him.” And the prophet responded by saying, “Do so if you can.” The prophet also explicitly gave his assassins permission to lie and use trickery in order to accomplish their mission. The report goes on to describe how the prophet’s followers deceived the old man out of his house in the middle of the night and jumped on him with swords and daggers and brutally murdered him. After completing their mission, the followers reported back to the prophet that they “had killed God’s enemy.” The author concludes this incident by writing, “Our attack upon God’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.”
In another famous incident with Jewish, after having already expelled two Jewish tribes from the city of Medina, the prophet orchestrated the execution of all adult males of the last Jewish tribe of the city and taking of all property and women and children. The Muslims sources put the number of the Jewish men who were beheaded in one day anywhere between 600 to 900.
Another assassination ordered by the prophet was regarding his uncle Abu Sufyan, the leader of the pagan opposition in Mecca. Muslim volunteers traveled to Mecca to carry out this mission. The assassination attempt failed, however. On the way back to Medina, one of the followers of the prophet encountered a one-eyed shepherd who confidently claimed that he would never accept Islam. We pick up the account from the Muslim assassin himself. As soon as the man was “asleep and snoring I got up and killed him in a more horrible way than any man has been killed. I put the end of my bow in his sound eye, then bore down on it until I forced it out at the back of his neck… When I got to Medina… the apostle asked my news and when I told him what happened he blessed me.”

These aren’t even half of the stories. I could find many more. Muhammad viewed a mere insult as oppression and used that to give legitimate reasons to murder hundreds.

Exactly what did America do to start the war on terrorism? Sell a movie? That is all it takes. They bombed us first and we didn’t do anything violent to them.

What did the murdered Danish living in the Muslim countries do to them? Being born in a country that insulted them even though those Danish had nothing to do with it. A cartoon, a movie, that’s all it took to start this war.

You have actually pointed out no facts, but simply said I ignored them. What facts have I ignored?

Islamic violence is not a phenomenon. They can easily be explained and justified by the Islamic religious text and Muhammad himself. It is you choosing to ignore these facts which I have set out thoroughly.

Name one, then put down a credible source. Christians are taught only the truth. I have examined their teaching and I see no lies. It goes against Christian teaching to lie or to murder. You don’t see Christians killing people over something as simple as a Danish cartoon. Those cartoons insulted every religion, not just Islam. Muslims are completely justified by their own ideal figure Muhammad to go out and murder Danish Christians, burn Danish embassies, and call for the deaths of the cartoon makers.

1. No, that is actually just the way the Quran is and terrorists themselves have used the Quran to justify their actions.

In a sermon broadcast on official Palestinian Authority television in 2000, Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, a member of the Palestinian Authority’s Fatwa Council, declared: “Allah the almighty has called upon us not to ally with the Jews or Christians, not to like them, not to become their partners, not to support them, and not to sign agreements with them’…. Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them.”
In this Abu Halabiya was quoting Quran 5:51 (“O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them”) and 9:5 (“slay the idolaters wherever ye find them”). He applied these words to the contemporary political situation: “Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them- and those who stand by them- they are all in one trench, against Arabs and the Muslims- because they establish Israel here, in the beating heart of the Arab world, in Palestine. They created it to be outpost of their civilization- and the vanguard of their army, and to be the sword of the west and the crusaders, hanging over the necks of the monotheists, the Muslims in these lands.”

That is straight from the terrorist leader's mouth.

2. You know absolutely nothing of the Islamic laws

“Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." Al-Bukhari, vol. 4, 55

Afghanistan is run by Islamic laws. The western governments have no say in what Afghanistan passes as law, but they do fund the Afghan Government and they do listen to us or they would lose their funding. I saved some articles, take a look.

You obviously don’t know a thing about that case in Afghanistan. You ignored critical information. Abdul was clearly being held on trial simply for converting to Christianity. All the charges would have been dropped if he simply came back to Islam. He was a Christian who would have been killed by Islamic law for rejecting Islam. That goes perfectly with the Muslims doctrine and Muslims have said so themselves. It was the western governments that freed him.

If you want another definition of what Muslims call "oppression" then this is a good example. A Muslim was lost to the Christian faith, thusly, Christianity in general is an "oppressor" and all Christians must die.

3. Again you ignore critical information. Did you not here that they were simply asked their religion and killed if they didn’t answer “Muslim?” That is outright attacking religious faith and no political conflicts are invloved in that argument whatsoever.

That makes two of us.

Christian doctrine has been the way it always was since the day the Bible was written. I looked and I could not find one change to the way the Biblical definition of Christianity is taught.

Many have claimed to be Christians and taught things contradictory to the Bible, but if it sways from the Bible, then it is not Biblical Christianity. It is important to distinguish the lies from the truth.

…that doesn’t make any sense. Riddles are not part of a debate. Either state the facts clearly or at least post up a link.

Surah 4:89 “they but wish that ye should reject faith as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they. But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them”

They are told not to change their faith and kill anyone who attempts to do so.

Don’t take actions done in the name of Christianity for true Christianity. The same goes for Islam. Anyone who does that will readily accept anything they hear. I'm not so sure about what Buddihism truly teaches.

I have studied political Islam and I see that you have little knowledge of it at all and I am sticking to the facts. You have a serious lack of facts, but dozens of opinions and theories. Unfortunately those are of little use in a debate.

Are you aware that those Christians and Jews were killed soon after?

My knowledge is backed by facts. Please produce your own facts and this Abu Sayaff whom you say exists. You will need to be a lot more specific than that.

Ray

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Swift Sword

That is the dominant opinon of mainstream media outlets such as Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh Show but it does not take into account those pesky facts that you will become familiar with when you study the origins and evotlution of Pan Islamic/political Islamic thought.

As Shek and I have been pointing out, you are ignoring many centuries of history.

Guys like al Wahab and al Afghani and the ideologies they espoused did not spring up in a vacum.

The answers and facts you seek are to be found from the late 18'th Century onward, not in the pre-Tenth Century books and history you and the Salafis cannot seem to move beyond.

Whose Islamic laws? Hanafi? Shafi? Maliki? Hanbali?

Political Science 101: religion and politics are two wheels of a cart.

It makes perfect sense if you are familiar with Islam.

Have you ever made serious inquiry into the beings who revealed the Quran to Mohammed?

Have you noticed the crescent Moon atop many a minaret?

Have you noticed the crescent Moon atop many a mosque dome?

Have you noticed the Moon on the Pakistani flag...and that of Comoros...and that of Turkey...and those of Tunisia and Turkmenistan?

Just what do you suppose this means?

Look into it; you might learn something.

You say I failed to study political Isalm and you think that Abu Sayaff is just somebody "whom I say exists"?

Again, this supports what Shek and I have been saying for quite some time now: you are ignoring many of the most pertinent facts and much of the history of that which your are attempting to study.

To not know whom Abu Sayaff are is a clear indication that you are ignoring 500 years of Muslim history and the last 105 years of American history.

Abu Sayaff is very real and it is astounding that you would rail against Islamic violence yet not know of them, especially in the Post 9/11 time frame. Amazing, absolutely amazing.

__________________
Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

Shek

Insomniac,
You have conveniently sidestepped this question twice. Instead of creating a longer post such that you can pick and choose those questions that you want to address, I'll keep this post simple and straightforward. Why do ANY blacks follow what you proclaim is an inherently racist religion?

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Insomniac

Islamic violence never evolved. They just use modern technology now. Muhammad was violent, his followers were violent, and the Middle east today that is ruled by Islamic governments is a war zone, even before the United States declared War on Iraq.

You are ignoring the words of the Quran and Hadiths, along with the voices of the Muslim terrorists and events today. I have not ignored any history of the centuries. Islam has always been violent.

Al Wahah and Al Afghani had ideologies that went against the Quran and Hadiths. Which one do you think Muslims are going to follow?

In case you didn’t already know this the Salafis were founded in the 18th century. Militant Salafis place great emphasis on jihad, or holy war, which they interpret as armed struggle and regard as a religious duty. They believe in the establishment of a Muslim state governed by Sharia, or religious law. That is the same law that sentences anyone who rejects Islam to death. The Salafis have caused much violence from the late 18th century and onward to the present.

Sudan has an Islamic government. They are following Islamic law, but apparently you didn’t read that whole article. Here let me post it much clearier.

That is political Islam for you. I hope you studied that.

I have looked into it and I don’t see what point you are trying to make. Allah was originally a Arabian mythological god of the moon, until Muhammad said the he was the one true God of the world. Thusly, the crescent moon is the symbol of Islam.

I would like you to also take into account the satanic verses. Muhammad told his followers to worship the mythological daughters of Allah, but that goes against his teaching that Allah is the one true God. Later he blamed them on satanic influences and said that a demon had temporarily possessed him. There is no telling how long the demon had actually possessed him, nor when it left. For all we know, Muhammad could have been demon possessed all the time he was teaching Islam. His actions were certainly that of the Biblical description of a demon possessed man.

I said you need to be more specific. Adu Sayaff is a common name. When I did an internet search for him I find things like cooking recipes and a bunch of other useless information. Other than that article on how to make delicious French toast I found nothing usable or related to Islam.

Blacks in Muslim countries have very few choices. Non-Muslims have had their businesses and houses burned down and have faced much personal attacks on them and their families. They are not accepted by society. They see raped and beaten non-Muslims put out in their streets as an example. On the other hand, the worst they could receive from an Islamic society if they become Muslims is an insult. They are only offered two options from society: be wounded or insulted. Blacks who value their lives choose to be insulted.

The Black Muslim Movement in America tells lies about Islam and makes it appeal to the African Americans who feel they have been oppressed by white people. The Black Muslim Movement only feeds off racial hatred.

Ray

Insomniac

No, that is true Islam. I'm trying to say that is how Islam runs politics and government. They hired war criminals with known records of mass murder, lie to protect the Jihad, kill anyone who is not a Muslim and then try to hide it, force some of them into slavery, and say that anyone they kill is their own buisness. It's either be a Muslim or you're only an infidel worth being killed sent to eternal damnation in hell. Everything that has been done goes along with Muhammad's words, the Quran, and the Hadiths. They killed them wherever they found them and they are killing until there is no more disbelief.

I see something similar to the Nazis of WWII.

Ray

Swift Sword

Propaganda 101: You would like me to ascribe the violence of individuals to the culture itself so I stop thinking of Muslims as human beings. If I bought into it, I would more readily absolve both myself and you of any responsibility when you start reapetedly using the phrase "by any means necessary".

That is an old trick; save it for an audience that can be swayed by it.

What did you find significant about "Fi Zalal al-Koran?"

Did you catch the shift of emphasis in Zawahari's "Fursan Taht Rayah Al-Nabi"

The words of the terrorists are telling indeed.

Evidently the few Muslims who espouse views inspired by al Wahab and al Afghani are enough to let terrorism dictate your agenda which is why you need to know this stuff because of what is going to happen next.

When you start studying the evolution of Islamisist thought, think of al Wahab and al Afghani's ideological views as two strands in a double helix just like a DNA molecule.

These two strands of thought of themselves have a couple of distinct properties but they seperate from time to time and place to place and brush back up against each other from time to time and place to place spinning off recombined bits and pieces.

Pay careful attention to the period right after the First World War, the 1960s and the 1980s.

You might want to take into account a little detour on the Bitter Lake that FDR took on the way back from Yalta as it is essentially the first step on the road to 9/11 and beyond but Google will spit a bunch of conspiracy stuff back at you so delve into it a bit.

I am glad that you have finally started looking in the right place.

Precisely!

Now we are getting somewhere.

Keep al Afghani in mind.

Whose Sharia sheds a little bit of light on the story.

What kind of behavoir would you expect from the king makers of the men of al Dariyah...and to some extent Ronald Reagan?

Also, what do you make of the refromist movements among the muwahiddun?