[quote]lixy wrote:
Did anyone else hear about the ridiculous 1200$ proposed to the families of the victims of the 16th September Blackwater shootings? Proof, if needed, that Iraqi lives are expendable in the eyes of the US government.[/quote]
Coming from someone who acts as an apologist for people deliberately using Iraqis as human shields…“What do you expect them to do! You’re too strong for them!” Don’t worry, we know you’re sincere. /snicker.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
I am claiming that paying an innocent victim’s family is morally better than paying the family of a suicide bomber, who in killing himself, claims scores of (as of yet unpaid) victims.
Gee, thanks Cpt. Obvious.
This whole thing is insane. Whoever pays suicide bombers to blow up Iraqis should be taken out. Period. Now, what’s all this have to do with my comment and why did you reply to it with that junk? Did you ever see me defend people paying the families of suicide bombers who go after Iraqi civilians?[/quote]
How about people that pay suicide bombers to go after Israeli civilians?
[quote]boatguy wrote:
We are talking about a society and religion where the rulebook(the Koran) states emphatically that it is perfectly fine to lie to anyone you want if they are not a Muslim, or if you decide they are supporting non-Muslims. [/quote]
It does? I read the Holy Book frequently and never stumbled upon this passage. Care to enlighten me?
[quote]lixy wrote:
boatguy wrote:
We are talking about a society and religion where the rulebook(the Koran) states emphatically that it is perfectly fine to lie to anyone you want if they are not a Muslim, or if you decide they are supporting non-Muslims.
It does? I read the Holy Book frequently and never stumbled upon this passage. Care to enlighten me?
[/quote]
Please dispense with the normal, and expected silliness, and point out the parts that, you, perceieve as accurate or inacurate.
From the Religion of Peace.com
Lying (Taqiyya and Kitman)
Question:
Are Muslims permitted to lie?
Summary Answer:
Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should be truthful to each other.
There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. One of those circumstances is to gain the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.
The Qur’an:
Sura (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.
Sura (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves.”
Sura (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must “hide his faith” among those who are not believers.
Sura (2:225) - “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts”
Sura (66:2) - “Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths”
Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be “compelled” to deceive others for a greater purpose.
From the Hadith:
Bukhari (52:269) - “The Prophet said, ‘War is deceit.’” The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad’s men after he “guaranteed” them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).
Bukhari (49:857) - “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.
Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an “enemy.”
Bukhari (52:271) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad’s insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka’b’s trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.
From Islamic Law:
Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746) - “[it is] obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory… Whether the purpose is war, settling a disagreement, or gaining the sympathy of a victim legally entitled to retaliate… it is not unlawful to lie when any of these aims can only be attained through lying. But is is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression…”
Additional Notes:
Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:
Taqiyya - Saying something that isn’t true.
Kitman - Lying by omission.
An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills “it shall be as if he had killed all mankind”) while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of “corruption” and “mischief.”
Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed. (See Sura (9:3) - (“…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…”)
Another example is when Muhammad tricked the leader of an opposing tribe with whom he was not at war to leave his town on the pretext of meeting with him at Medina. Usayr ibn Zarim traveled with thirty men who were unarmed because of Muhammad’s guarantee of safety. They were easily massacred by the prophet’s Muslim assassins.
The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of ‘hypocrisy.’
The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is “a a bomb on board” but that everyone will “be safe” as long as “their demands are met.” Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to “slay and be slain for the cause of Allah” (as the Qur’an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.
The near absence of Qur’anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty. In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that most Muslims are quite honest.
Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran’s nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
I am claiming that paying an innocent victim’s family is morally better than paying the family of a suicide bomber, who in killing himself, claims scores of (as of yet unpaid) victims.
Gee, thanks Cpt. Obvious.
This whole thing is insane. Whoever pays suicide bombers to blow up Iraqis should be taken out. Period. Now, what’s all this have to do with my comment and why did you reply to it with that junk? Did you ever see me defend people paying the families of suicide bombers who go after Iraqi civilians?
How about people that pay suicide bombers to go after Israeli civilians?[/quote]
He’s really ducking this question. He knows he’s cornered himself.
[quote]hedo wrote:
lixy wrote:
boatguy wrote:
We are talking about a society and religion where the rulebook(the Koran) states emphatically that it is perfectly fine to lie to anyone you want if they are not a Muslim, or if you decide they are supporting non-Muslims.
It does? I read the Holy Book frequently and never stumbled upon this passage. Care to enlighten me?
Please dispense with the normal, and expected silliness, and point out the parts that, you, perceieve as accurate or inacurate.
From the Religion of Peace.com
Lying (Taqiyya and Kitman)
Question:
Are Muslims permitted to lie?
Summary Answer:
Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should be truthful to each other.
There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. One of those circumstances is to gain the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.
The Qur’an:
Sura (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie. [/quote]
Could have quoted the verses. I know some of the text by heart, but asking me to catalog everything with verse number in my brain is a bit too much. Anyway, I’ll
Here’s the 106th verse of Surah 16 (The bee) “Those who disbelieve in God, after having acquired faith, and become fully content with disbelief, have incurred wrath from God. The only ones to be excused are those who are forced to profess disbelief, while their hearts are full of faith.”
The verse unambiguously states that if someone is holding a gun to your head and asks that you renounce your faith, you may go ahead because God knows your intentions. So, please, if you’re gonna try and back boatguy’s claim, do some reading.
And how does that relate to boatguy’s statement? As a reminder, here’s what he claimed: “We are talking about a society and religion where the rulebook(the Koran) states emphatically that it is perfectly fine to lie to anyone you want if they are not a Muslim”
Surely, even an intellectually challenged person like yourself can see that the verse - which you didn’t even bother to quote - does not support such an assertion.
This is about Moses and Pharaoh. When the tyrant wanted to kill Moses saying to the people “Let me kill Moses, and let him implore his Lord. I worry lest he corrupts your religion, or spreads evil throughout the land.” (Quran 40:26) Somebody in his entourage challenged that. Hence, verse 28: "A believing man among Pharaoh’s people, who was concealing his belief, said, “How can you kill a man just for saying, `My Lord is God,’ and he has shown you clear proofs from your Lord? If he is a liar, that is his problem, and if he is truthful, you benefit from his promises. Surely, GOD does not guide any transgressor, liar.”
I wouldn’t translate al-laghw to thoughtlessness. “Mere utterance of words” conveys better the meaning. Anyway, how’s this of any relevance to boatguy’s statement? If you read the previous verse, you’d see that the context of the oaths in question.
I’m not certain, but it seems to me that the verse is directed to the prophet who swore not to drink honey again because his wife told him that it gave him bad breath.
In fact, looking at the previous verse: “O you prophet, why do you prohibit what God has made lawful for you, just to please your wives? God is Forgiver, Merciful”. I don’t see how it relates to my question which was directed to boatguy, but I do have one question for you though: How can one claim that the “you” in the second verse refers to “O men”, when the preceding AND subsequent verse refer to the prophet directly and unambiguously? I’m curious. Really.
La-di-da! I never challenged that. Try reading boatguy’s post. By the way, I’m looking forward to reading his reply.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
How about people that pay suicide bombers to go after Israeli civilians?
He’s really ducking this question. He knows he’s cornered himself.[/quote]
I didn’t think it was a serious question. Seeing how a person committing suicide can only be paid in prayers and all.
[quote]lixy wrote:
The verse unambiguously states that if someone is holding a gun to your head and asks that you renounce your faith, you may go ahead because God knows your intentions. [/quote]
Why wouldn’t you die for your faith?
[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
lixy wrote:
boatguy wrote:
We are talking about a society and religion where the rulebook(the Koran) states emphatically that it is perfectly fine to lie to anyone you want if they are not a Muslim, or if you decide they are supporting non-Muslims.
It does? I read the Holy Book frequently and never stumbled upon this passage. Care to enlighten me?
Please dispense with the normal, and expected silliness, and point out the parts that, you, perceieve as accurate or inacurate.
From the Religion of Peace.com
Lying (Taqiyya and Kitman)
Question:
Are Muslims permitted to lie?
Summary Answer:
Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should be truthful to each other.
There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. One of those circumstances is to gain the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.
The Qur’an:
Sura (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.
Could have quoted the verses. I know some of the text by heart, but asking me to catalog everything with verse number in my brain is a bit too much. Anyway, I’ll
Here’s the 106th verse of Surah 16 (The bee) “Those who disbelieve in God, after having acquired faith, and become fully content with disbelief, have incurred wrath from God. The only ones to be excused are those who are forced to profess disbelief, while their hearts are full of faith.”
The verse unambiguously states that if someone is holding a gun to your head and asks that you renounce your faith, you may go ahead because God knows your intentions. So, please, if you’re gonna try and back boatguy’s claim, do some reading.
Sura (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves.”
And how does that relate to boatguy’s statement? As a reminder, here’s what he claimed: “We are talking about a society and religion where the rulebook(the Koran) states emphatically that it is perfectly fine to lie to anyone you want if they are not a Muslim”
Surely, even an intellectually challenged person like yourself can see that the verse - which you didn’t even bother to quote - does not support such an assertion.
Sura (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must “hide his faith” among those who are not believers.
This is about Moses and Pharaoh. When the tyrant wanted to kill Moses saying to the people “Let me kill Moses, and let him implore his Lord. I worry lest he corrupts your religion, or spreads evil throughout the land.” (Quran 40:26) Somebody in his entourage challenged that. Hence, verse 28: "A believing man among Pharaoh’s people, who was concealing his belief, said, “How can you kill a man just for saying, `My Lord is God,’ and he has shown you clear proofs from your Lord? If he is a liar, that is his problem, and if he is truthful, you benefit from his promises. Surely, GOD does not guide any transgressor, liar.”
Sura (2:225) - “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts”
I wouldn’t translate al-laghw to thoughtlessness. “Mere utterance of words” conveys better the meaning. Anyway, how’s this of any relevance to boatguy’s statement? If you read the previous verse, you’d see that the context of the oaths in question.
Sura (66:2) - “Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths”
I’m not certain, but it seems to me that the verse is directed to the prophet who swore not to drink honey again because his wife told him that it gave him bad breath.
In fact, looking at the previous verse: “O you prophet, why do you prohibit what God has made lawful for you, just to please your wives? God is Forgiver, Merciful”. I don’t see how it relates to my question which was directed to boatguy, but I do have one question for you though: How can one claim that the “you” in the second verse refers to “O men”, when the preceding AND subsequent verse refer to the prophet directly and unambiguously? I’m curious. Really.
Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be “compelled” to deceive others for a greater purpose.
La-di-da! I never challenged that. Try reading boatguy’s post. By the way, I’m looking forward to reading his reply.[/quote]
Hey dipshit you asked to be enlightened. What you actually said was this:
“It does? I read the Holy Book frequently and never stumbled upon this passage. Care to enlighten me?”
You have been enlightened but instead of admitting you are wrong you launch into a tangent about debating protocol which you have demonstrated you do not have the ability to pursue with any sort of vigor.
You are predicatable. Unfortunately what strange novelty you used to have has turned to outright dishonesty and pure unadultered bullshit. You are mere comic refielf now lixy. Your cell leader must not be happy with you.
Good luck with the cyber Jihad. Hope it’s working out for you better on the other boards.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I didn’t think it was a serious question. Seeing how a person committing suicide can only be paid in prayers and all.[/quote]
I think he means paying THE FAMILY of the suicide bomber, which happens, btw.
Pray for a suicide bomber…WTF?
Not sure what you’re looking for there lixy, hedo pretty much covered it. Maybe ‘states emphatically’ was a little strong, but it’s there nonetheless.
[quote]boatguy wrote:
Not sure what you’re looking for there lixy, hedo pretty much covered it. [/quote]
Not looking for an argument as you might have noticed from the courteous tone of my reply.
The Quran does say that it’s OK to lie when under duress. But “emphatically” and “perfectly fine” weren’t the only points I have issues with in your statement. I’m more interested in the “if they are not Muslims” part. As far as I know, there’s nothing in the Quran that suggests the faith of the interlocutor comes into play when determining when lying would be acceptable. In fact, the only circumstance when God overlooks lies, is when one is asked persecuted for his/her faith.
And oh, just so you know, Hedo thinks I’m a member of Al-Qaeda.
And the question is ignored.
So, does that include Israeli civilians?
[quote]lixy wrote:
boatguy wrote:
Not sure what you’re looking for there lixy, hedo pretty much covered it.
Not looking for an argument as you might have noticed from the courteous tone of my reply.
Maybe ‘states emphatically’ was a little strong, but it’s there nonetheless.
The Quran does say that it’s OK to lie when under duress. But “emphatically” and “perfectly fine” weren’t the only points I have issues with in your statement. I’m more interested in the “if they are not Muslims” part. As far as I know, there’s nothing in the Quran that suggests the faith of the interlocutor comes into play when determining when lying would be acceptable. In fact, the only circumstance when God overlooks lies, is when one is asked persecuted for his/her faith.
And oh, just so you know, Hedo thinks I’m a member of Al-Qaeda.[/quote]
No clearly you are too much of a pussy for that.
I claim you are enabler of terrorism and are on a cyber-Jihad. Understand now?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
I am claiming that paying an innocent victim’s family is morally better than paying the family of a suicide bomber, who in killing himself, claims scores of (as of yet unpaid) victims.
Gee, thanks Cpt. Obvious.
This whole thing is insane. Whoever pays suicide bombers to blow up Iraqis should be taken out. Period. Now, what’s all this have to do with my comment and why did you reply to it with that junk? Did you ever see me defend people paying the families of suicide bombers who go after Iraqi civilians?
How about people that pay suicide bombers to go after Israeli civilians?
He’s really ducking this question. He knows he’s cornered himself.[/quote]
Remember, isn’t he supposed to do that? We’re infidels.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, does that include Israeli civilians?[/quote]
Of course it does. Innocents are innocents, be they Germans, Mongols, Christians, Zoroastrians, black or white.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Of course it does. Innocents are innocents, be they Germans, Mongols, Christians, Zoroastrians, black or white.[/quote]
Ha!
Mongols.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
I haven’t paid too much attention to the growth of Blackwater and the privatization of the US military in general. However, I just listened to a very interesting radio show (On Point radio - Tom Ashbrook) on the topic:
Based on the analysis and discussion, I don’t think it’s too much of an exaggeration to say that this an insidiously anti-democratic & dangerous development. Who on earth - what political persuasion - can actually think otherwise? In short, Katzenjammer - as a traditional conservative - is not pleased.
Love & kisses to you all. ~katz [/quote]
I think it’s a sign of brain damage when you write in the third person!
Remember, don’t hold your breath during heavy squats!