Islam in a Nutshell

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Chushin wrote:
yusef wrote:
Confound not truth with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the truth. Verse 2:42

And yet:

Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali says: “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.” (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745)

[/quote]

“War is deceit” -Quran

Muslims are allowed to lie when under duress, persecuted or merely outnumbered by us filthy infidels.

To be honest, Muslims, all you have to do is convince me that science is able to wonderfully coexist with your warloving, polygamist religion. That great scientific work will still be done by purehearted orthodox Muslims thousands of years into the future. Then I will enthusiastically join

I find it pretty hard to believe in a God though. That Paradise thing sounds appealing but rushing off to battle is less so if it isn’t real.

42

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

The concept may no longer, as you say, be a valid doctrine in modern Judaism (although it does seem to be a tenet of Zionism: if it’s a mitzvah to occupy the land of Israel, it’s a mitzvah to fight for it),

Well, then those Zionists who so believe had better brush up on their Maimonides, who distinguished the “obligatory” war (inclusive of the defensive war) from the “voluntary” war–that fought by the leadership to expand its territory for glory, profit, etc.[/quote]

Quite so. And even the milkhemet reshut (“authorized” war) is, if I understand Maimonides, no longer permissible because it can only be authorized by the Sanhedrin. No Sanhedrin these days, unless you count the Israeli Parliament. And even then, you need a king (unless the Prime Minister now fills that role), and a consultation with the Urim Vitumim of the high priest, which has gone missing since about a thousand years before Christ.

So I wonder what sort of a war the devout Jew in the Israeli Defense Force tells himself he is now waging, if it is neither a milkhemet mitzvah nor a milkhemet reshut.

43

HOW DARE YOU IMPLY ISLAM IS SMALL ENOUGH TO FIT IN A NUTSHELL! WE MUST NOW KILL ALL GO AND BLOW UP AN AMERICAN EMBASSY! JIHAD! ALLAHU AKBAR!

44

[quote]dhickey wrote:
lixy wrote:
valiant knight wrote:
Actually, Muslims invented the concept of Holy War.

Don’t forget rape, slavery, lying, patricide and squat-rack curls.

So you do agree with the Holy War assertion?

To your non-productive response, I can’t recall any other religion that explicitly condones lying.[/quote]

Jews can, but only to gentiles, Baba Kamma 113a in the Talmud

they can also kill gentiles (lol infidels much?)
cheat gentiles out of money (easy stereotype)
steal from them and then kill them with no death penalty
gentiles are non human

monotheism has been a curse to mankind.

45

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
dhickey wrote:
lixy wrote:
valiant knight wrote:
…
To your non-productive response, I can’t recall any other religion that explicitly condones lying.

Jews can, but only to gentiles, Baba Kamma 113a in the Talmud

they can also kill gentiles (lol infidels much?)
cheat gentiles out of money (easy stereotype)
steal from them and then kill them with no death penalty
gentiles are non human

monotheism has been a curse to mankind.[/quote]

Well, then. I must presume that you are somewhat less than fluent in Western Aramaic dialect of the 2nd Century, and instead, your opinions are cut-and-pasted from some website with a less-than-hidden agenda.

The folio you site says absolutely nothing of the sort. For your comparison, I offer this reasonably accurate translation of Baba Kamma 113a:

You will notice, PB, that there is no such condoning of lying. This folio deals with aspects of stealing, and as usual, offers different contentions as to the conduct of The Law. For example, it is wrong to steal from a “heathen” (specifically, not just any “gentile,” but an idol-worshipper) tax-collector. Where the laws conflict, and there is no court of recourse, it is permissible to “circumvent” the heathen law. Who among us can help but sympathize with tax-evaders rebelling against a foreign power?
But it is the great Akiba who speaks clearly: such stealing–even from a heathen-- is still forbidden.

You may choose to read further, and find that, in consideration of a found object, it is arguably not considered stealing if a “heathen” owner is not sought out. Such prejudice! (But other authorities disagree.)

Each one of the calumnies which you have cited, I could easily refute. But I choose not to bother. I think that you have been misled, and you have relied on some hateful website for your “facts.” Now perhaps you will be armed , and break this scurrilous chain, and able to defend yourself from hateful and baseless insinuation and bigotry.

47

[quote]Chushin wrote:
yusef wrote:
Chushin wrote:
yusef wrote:
Confound not truth with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the truth. Verse 2:42

And yet:

Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali says: “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.” (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745)

Chushin, I’m interested in this quote you’ve given. Is the whole chapter online somewhere? I’d like to see the context.

Try this:

Search the book for “truth and lying.”

I’d be interested in your thoughts.

Also with regard to a man or woman being allowed to lie to a spouse “to smooth things over.”

Have to admit, in context the statement doesn’t seem QUITE so blatant. Still, I find it troubling…[/quote]

You’re focusing on the silly points here. Probably because bigotry shuts down reasoning skills.

Here’s a hint: What’s a “praiseworthy aim”? What qualifies as “to smooth things over”?

50

[quote]Chushin wrote:
lixy wrote:

You’re focusing on the silly points here. Probably because bigotry shuts down reasoning skills.

Here’s a hint: What’s a “praiseworthy aim”?

The spread of Islam?

Edit: On second thought, ignore that (above).

I see no reason to respond to some clown who calls me a bigot and condescendingly gives out “hints.”

Jerkwad.[/quote]

You are prejudiced towards Muslims, and assume the absolute worse about them. I’ve read enough of your posts on PRCal’s threads to know you’re a flat-out bigot.

I’m sure you think of yourself as just applying a healthy dose of criticism, but all I ever seen you try to do is demonize over a billion people based on your own shady understanding of the Quran.

If that’s not bigotry, I don’t know what is.

52

[quote]Chushin wrote:
lixy wrote:

You are prejudiced towards Muslims, and assume the absolute worse about them. I’ve read enough of your posts on PRCal’s threads to know you’re a flat-out bigot.

I’m sure you think of yourself as just applying a healthy dose of criticism, but all I ever seen you try to do is demonize over a billion people based on your own shady understanding of the Quran.

If that’s not bigotry, I don’t know what is.

Oh cool! Let me take a page from Varq’s playbook and Madlib this!

[i]You are prejudiced towards America, and assume the absolute worse [sic] about it. I’ve read enough of your posts on hundreds of threads to know you’re a flat-out bigot.

I’m sure you think of yourself as just applying a healthy dose of criticism, but all I ever seen you try to do is demonize over 300,000,000 people based on your own shady understanding of the the US.

If that’s not bigotry, I don’t know what is.[/i][/quote]

I’ll tell you what it is; bigotry is prejudice towards an ethnicity or ideology, and sticking to your prejudice even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

My position can hardly be described as prejudice towards “America” (I have issues with people from the United States thinking of their country as the center of the universe, but what country isn’t?). I loathe empires, and I don’t think the US’ founding fathers had a different position. In fact, you guys seem to be voting for the non-interventionist ticket: Bush 2000 and Obama 2009.

I believe that the collusion of corporations with some branches of the US government and the tremendous powers of the former, are creating a situation where the will of the people is increasingly irrelevant.

Moreover, I am exclusively denouncing what has already been denounced within the USA. And I actually propose solutions. You can’t keep up the empire for long. And I believe that making a conscious choice to dismantle foreign bases is a lot better than being forced to do so.

You, on the other hand, are interested in defaming a group of people for no other reason than to demonize them. And when your (evidently untenable) position gets challenged, you try to convince yourself that it’s not what “they” believe - just to demonize.

53

wow - we’re and empire - no one told me!! Does that mean the Iraq war was “The Empire Strikes Back” or the “Clone Wars”? LMAO

sheesh - empire - whatever . . . yeah all those controlled territories and some such . . . .

Just know that as long as Islam keeps from trying to foist a world-wide Caliphate with Sharia Law and Islam as the recognized authorities for all people - I’ve got no problem with them - but the moment they try by terrorism, legal subversion, outright war or other method to accomplish this “Kingdom of Allah” on this planet - I’ll be their worst enemy . . . oh wait . . . guess that makes me the enemy and apparently a bigot too . . .

54

[quote]lixy wrote:
My position can hardly be described as prejudice towards “America” (I have issues with people from the United States thinking of their country as the center of the universe, but what country isn’t?). I loathe empires, and I don’t think the US’ founding fathers had a different position.
[/quote]
Depends on the party. some were very much in favor of expansionism.

I am sorry but we haven’t had a non-intervensionis ticket since Coolidge.

You forgot special interest groups. I am far less concened with corporations.

quite true.

[quote]
You, on the other hand, are interested in defaming a group of people for no other reason than to demonize them. And when your (evidently untenable) position gets challenged, you try to convince yourself that it’s not what “they” believe - just to demonize.[/quote]

56

[quote]lixy wrote:
I loathe empires, and I don’t think the US’ founding fathers had a different position. In fact, you guys seem to be voting for the non-interventionist ticket: Bush 2000 and Obama 2009.
[/quote]

Please list all of the American colonies.

57

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

Please list all of the American colonies.[/quote]

Province of New Hampshire
Province of Massachusetts Bay
Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
Connecticut Colony
Province of New York
Province of New Jersey
Province of Pennsylvania
Delaware Colony
Province of Maryland
Colony and Dominion of Virginia
Province of North Carolina
Province of South Carolina
Province of Georgia

What do I win?

58

[quote]Chushin wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

sheesh - empire - whatever . . . yeah all those controlled territories and some such . . . .

Just know that as long as Islam keeps from trying to foist a world-wide Caliphate with Sharia Law and Islam as the recognized authorities for all people - I’ve got no problem with them - but the moment they try by terrorism, legal subversion, outright war or other method to accomplish this “Kingdom of Allah” on this planet - I’ll be their worst enemy . . . oh wait . . . guess that makes me the enemy and apparently a bigot too . . .

But, but… Irish! How can you make such a statement in the face of “overwhelming evidence” that it’s not true? You act as if people who identify themselves as Muslims are going around the world trying to kill innocents in the name of Islam. As if such folks immigrate into a country that welcomes them, only to demand that things be done there in an “Islamic” way. What? Are you next going to claim that the whole world somehow isn’t allowed to write fiction or draw cartoons that criticize Islam for fear of a violent backlash by these followers of “The Religion of Peace?”

Oh I see… You’re just trying to vilify this lovely religion because you’re a bigot!

See, if some Muslims themselves had already identified these sorts of problems THEMSELVES, within the community of Muslims, you might have a point. But since none of them have (those guys aren’t REAL Muslims afterall), you are, without a doubt, a 1-billion-people-hating, peace-loving-religion-vilifying, Empire-supporting, dyed-in-the-wool bigot!

I knew I liked you for some reason! [/quote]

I guess we should form a Crusader Empire Band of Bigots (CEBOB - pronounced see bob)!!

59

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Gkhan wrote:

Please list all of the American colonies.

Province of New Hampshire
Province of Massachusetts Bay
Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
Connecticut Colony
Province of New York
Province of New Jersey
Province of Pennsylvania
Delaware Colony
Province of Maryland
Colony and Dominion of Virginia
Province of North Carolina
Province of South Carolina
Province of Georgia

What do I win?[/quote]

LMAO!! excellent Varq!