Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So what was the trigger event for radical islam?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Daud
    replied
    Originally posted by nastle View Post

    Cousins are blood relatives and you can marry first cousins in Islam
    Just from one side, not all. There are specific rules

    Leave a comment:


  • nastle
    replied
    Originally posted by Daud View Post

    We shouldnt. I believe you re stretching out thing, some what suprr imposing to fit your view.

    Man cant compare blood relatives, family, eith social terms as friends.
    Cousins are blood relatives and you can marry first cousins in Islam

    Leave a comment:


  • Daud
    replied
    Originally posted by nastle View Post

    What about sisters or best friends or cousins ?
    you are assuming only daughters mothers will be jealous of each other

    These are laws of barbaric desert tribes whether jews or muslims , maybe relevant back then but In no way represent the ultimate truth, which for ever remained elusive.anyway since you are clearly not objective we will not make any headway here.
    We shouldnt. I believe you re stretching out thing, some what suprr imposing to fit your view.

    Man cant compare blood relatives, family, eith social terms as friends.

    Leave a comment:


  • nastle
    replied
    Originally posted by Daud View Post

    You got it good, Islam is indeed a light version of the religion that was among ancient people. We have some alleviations.

    I dont find a problem in constitution / law itself but implementation. There was the problem all the time. We re being infiltrated by psychopaths and other blood/power thirsty people who use religious doctrine for their own goals.


    (1) - thats only in shiism



    Let me give you one nice example that can show you why shariah is divine:


    In secular law - man can marry a woman, then divorce her, then marry her mother - no problem.

    In shariah - if you marry a woman, her mother is forbidden to you for the rest of your life, no matter what. In opposite case is not.
    If you marry woman, then divorce her, you can marry her daughter.


    Why ? Because that divine law protects and keeps family ties, like other relations among people in general.

    - a daughter would never forgive her mother because of marrying her man, it would instill hatred and jelausy
    - however, mother would not be angy at her child in this case.




    So when i see such example, as many other, i see divine thing.
    What about sisters or best friends or cousins ?
    you are assuming only daughters mothers will be jealous of each other

    These are laws of barbaric desert tribes whether jews or muslims , maybe relevant back then but In no way represent the ultimate truth, which for ever remained elusive.anyway since you are clearly not objective we will not make any headway here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daud
    replied
    Originally posted by nastle View Post

    I have no beef with shariah it is essentially a later version of jewish laws with some arabian flavor to it , but as all reasonable people know religious laws are hogwash
    That is my essential point of disagreement with muslims , they think they have a perfect way of life which is beyond question and no other mainstream religious group ( barring some religious nutjob jewish christian and hindu sects) think that way.
    What is more they think (1) their scholars ( used to be caliph before) have a God given right to interpret those laws in modern context.
    You got it good, Islam is indeed a light version of the religion that was among ancient people. We have some alleviations.

    I dont find a problem in constitution / law itself but implementation. There was the problem all the time. We re being infiltrated by psychopaths and other blood/power thirsty people who use religious doctrine for their own goals.


    (1) - thats only in shiism



    Let me give you one nice example that can show you why shariah is divine:


    In secular law - man can marry a woman, then divorce her, then marry her mother - no problem.

    In shariah - if you marry a woman, her mother is forbidden to you for the rest of your life, no matter what. In opposite case is not.
    If you marry woman, then divorce her, you can marry her daughter.


    Why ? Because that divine law protects and keeps family ties, like other relations among people in general.

    - a daughter would never forgive her mother because of marrying her man, it would instill hatred and jelausy
    - however, mother would not be angy at her child in this case.




    So when i see such example, as many other, i see divine thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • nastle
    replied
    Originally posted by Daud View Post

    Nah, they re perfect, IF implemented justly.
    We re trying based on our human intellect to improve the system.. but still it lacks.

    Few days ago someone stole my bicycle, paid it around 600. Alot of them would change few days in prison for money eithout the problem, but would never change it for his hand.

    I dont need to care about crimial laws since im not criminal, never will be. I hope you get me.
    Thats why i dont understand your beef with shariah.

    Iranians and Saudis dont have groomin gangs on streets. So...
    I have no beef with shariah it is essentially a later version of jewish laws with some arabian flavor to it , but as all reasonable people know religious laws are hogwash
    That is my essential point of disagreement with muslims , they think they have a perfect way of life which is beyond question and no other mainstream religious group ( barring some religious nutjob jewish christian and hindu sects) think that way.
    What is more they think their scholars ( used to be caliph before) have a God given right to interpret those laws in modern context.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daud
    replied
    Originally posted by nastle View Post

    I agree that Muhammad and some of his laws seemed mild compared to 7th century rules but just like you said they are utterly outdated and barbaric by 21st century standards
    Believe me I think there should be capital punishment for all these hoodlums from south side of chicago and BLM punks
    Nah, they re perfect, IF implemented justly.
    We re trying based on our human intellect to improve the system.. but still it lacks.

    Few days ago someone stole my bicycle, paid it around 600. Alot of them would change few days in prison for money eithout the problem, but would never change it for his hand.

    I dont need to care about crimial laws since im not criminal, never will be. I hope you get me.
    Thats why i dont understand your beef with shariah.

    Iranians and Saudis dont have groomin gangs on streets. So...

    Leave a comment:


  • nastle
    replied
    Originally posted by Daud View Post

    I would appriciate. It would help me grow in knowledge and thats why i asked you to give the details- about which event you think.
    ---------------------------------

    I ll try to explain an error you made here.

    Few days ago i bought a vegan salami and was astonished how color and taste was similar to the original.

    I asked myself will the government in future fully forbid killing of animals since we re able nowdays to produce such things. Now imagine if that happens in 2040, and then, just 1 cenutury later someone calls you a barbarian because you killed and ate animals !


    What kind of treaties and agreements they made back then ?

    In order to understand our position on international law and treaties of today you need go read some book on Mu'ahadat and Siyar.

    If we all made a deal, not to kill POW, (theoretically) we need to be the first to implement and respect all contract we have.



    إِلَّا ٱلَّذِينَ عَٰهَدتُّم مِّنَ ٱلۡمُشۡرِكِينَ ثُمَّ لَمۡ يَنقُصُوكُمۡ شَيۡـٔٗا وَلَمۡ يُظَٰهِرُواْ عَلَيۡكُمۡ أَحَدٗا فَأَتِمُّوٓاْ إِلَيۡهِمۡ عَهۡدَهُمۡ إِلَىٰ مُدَّتِهِمۡۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُحِبُّ ٱلۡمُتَّقِينَ


    Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

    -Sure At-Tauwbah, Vers 4


    I dont want to bother you with examples and details. In short, if we die our families will even give back a money ( if we owed), then imagine bigfer contract or treaties.

    But, sometimes killing is better then endless living in prison and gettin tortured daily - as so"civilised" nation do to people today.
    I agree that Muhammad and some of his laws seemed mild compared to 7th century rules but just like you said they are utterly outdated and barbaric by 21st century standards
    Believe me I think there should be capital punishment for all these hoodlums from south side of chicago and BLM punks

    Leave a comment:


  • nastle
    replied
    Originally posted by Daud View Post


    We would be more brutal without religion. So you dont need a term. Look at the heithen nations before Christianity and Islam. They did it even on a bigger scale.

    Im 15th century durrin prosecution and killing of muslims in Spain, sultan Selim I ( father of Sulaiman the Magnificent) wanted to to the same in his empire, to prosecute and force christians ti accept Islam, but main scholars (ulama) forbid him to do so.

    Selim was harsh man, but Islam had authority over him and he didnt do what he wanted.

    We have that animalistic side and Gods religion should take us above that level ( thats the purpose actually). We make it just in some percentage.
    Ofcourse Christian and muslim in east were of similar ethnicities but not in the west.Tribal links were always stronger than religious allegiance
    thata why salahuddin slaughtered the European knights in cold blood yet spared the Christians of the east

    Leave a comment:


  • Daud
    replied
    Originally posted by nastle View Post

    Wish Islam was "radical" there is nothing radical about Islam
    infact the word "sunnah " which all muslims claim to follow roughly translates as tradition
    Islam is just the latest religious term given to the natural instincts of looting pillaging marauding which arabs persians and turks( and their allied nationalities) so excelled in

    We would be more brutal without religion. So you dont need a term. Look at the heithen nations before Christianity and Islam. They did it even on a bigger scale.

    Im 15th century durrin prosecution and killing of muslims in Spain, sultan Selim I ( father of Sulaiman the Magnificent) wanted to to the same in his empire, to prosecute and force christians ti accept Islam, but main scholars (ulama) forbid him to do so.

    Selim was harsh man, but Islam had authority over him and he didnt do what he wanted.

    We have that animalistic side and Gods religion should take us above that level ( thats the purpose actually). We make it just in some percentage.
    Last edited by Daud; 25 Jun 19, 00:55.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daud
    replied
    Originally posted by nastle View Post
    David
    My job is not to educate you, if you are curious you can research yourself.Otherwise ignore my comments
    I would appriciate. It would help me grow in knowledge and thats why i asked you to give the details- about which event you think.
    ---------------------------------

    I ll try to explain an error you made here.

    Few days ago i bought a vegan salami and was astonished how color and taste was similar to the original.

    I asked myself will the government in future fully forbid killing of animals since we re able nowdays to produce such things. Now imagine if that happens in 2040, and then, just 1 cenutury later someone calls you a barbarian because you killed and ate animals !


    What kind of treaties and agreements they made back then ?

    In order to understand our position on international law and treaties of today you need go read some book on Mu'ahadat and Siyar.

    If we all made a deal, not to kill POW, (theoretically) we need to be the first to implement and respect all contract we have.



    إِلَّا ٱلَّذِينَ عَٰهَدتُّم مِّنَ ٱلۡمُشۡرِكِينَ ثُمَّ لَمۡ يَنقُصُوكُمۡ شَيۡـٔٗا وَلَمۡ يُظَٰهِرُواْ عَلَيۡكُمۡ أَحَدٗا فَأَتِمُّوٓاْ إِلَيۡهِمۡ عَهۡدَهُمۡ إِلَىٰ مُدَّتِهِمۡۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُحِبُّ ٱلۡمُتَّقِينَ


    Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

    -Sure At-Tauwbah, Vers 4


    I dont want to bother you with examples and details. In short, if we die our families will even give back a money ( if we owed), then imagine bigfer contract or treaties.

    But, sometimes killing is better then endless living in prison and gettin tortured daily - as so"civilised" nation do to people today.

    Leave a comment:


  • nastle
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    There is no radical Islam, because a radical islam implies the existence of a non radical Islam, which does not exist .
    The Islam was born radical and will remain radical til he disappears .
    100 years ago the Islam killed countless Armenians, 50 years ago countless Indonesians,during 50 years countless non Muslims in Sudan were massacred by the Islam .
    The Islam did not become suddenly radical ,as are claiming its apologists .
    Wish Islam was "radical" there is nothing radical about Islam
    infact the word "sunnah " which all muslims claim to follow roughly translates as tradition
    Islam is just the latest religious term given to the natural instincts of looting pillaging marauding which arabs persians and turks( and their allied nationalities) so excelled in

    Leave a comment:


  • nastle
    replied
    Originally posted by Daud View Post


    It would be nice to attach some references when we talking about something, unless we want it to be relevant as dog's fart.
    David
    My job is not to educate you, if you are curious you can research yourself.Otherwise ignore my comments

    Leave a comment:


  • Daud
    replied
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post

    Oh, how about the rape of girls by the prophet Muhammad?
    Take off your ideological / political glasses if you want to read history properly.
    Last edited by Daud; 23 Jun 19, 09:27.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daud
    replied
    Originally posted by nastle View Post

    or torturing of captives , atleast did it to other arabs who I guess were just as barbaric

    worse is yet to come under his successors

    It would be nice to attach some references when we talking about something, unless we want it to be relevant as dog's fart.
    Last edited by Daud; 23 Jun 19, 09:28.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X