Muslim who needs answers???

  • Thread starter Thread starter Walid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Walid said:
==> Like the way American generals in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when
hundred of thousands died and more suffered, but in return maybe more saved lives even if most of them were innocent civilans. So they stopped the whole war and they saved lives but surely a lot of money.
Click to expand...
If I may degress a moment here. You are somewhat misinformed on this matter, brother. American generals did not make the decision to use atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The American president, Harry S. Truman, made the decision himself and accepted full responsibility for it.

Secondly, it is a matter of perception that the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were truly “innocent.” Children of course are innocent, but many of the adult citizens of those two cities were building war materials in their home workshops which made each home a factory and therefor a legitimate military target.
 
Walid said:
Sorry but what you said is very concise and not clear so please if you develop it further.
Click to expand...
i think she meant that cameras are not only for stealing but for other crimes like terrorism.
 
TurkiyeFan said:
If I may degress a moment here. You are somewhat misinformed on this matter, brother. American generals did not make the decision to use atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The American president, Harry S. Truman, made the decision himself and accepted full responsibility for it.

Secondly, it is a matter of perception that the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were truly “innocent.” Children of course are innocent, but many of the adult citizens of those two cities were building war materials in their home workshops which made each home a factory and therefor a legitimate military target.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification about the president. But on the other hand everyone helps his country when it is in a state of war.
 
inJESUS said:
i think she meant that cameras are not only for stealing but for other crimes like terrorism.
Click to expand...
Possible, but if it is the case she has just focused in the example an forget about the rest.
And it is just an example anyone can bring others.
 
Walid said:
Thanks for the clarification about the president. But on the other hand everyone helps his country when it is in a state of war.
Click to expand...
And since islam is in a continual state of war - muslims help out either by doing the fighting, funding it and deceiving others what it is all about.

Thank you inJesus to clarifying my note.

islam divides the world up into two realms: dar al islam (the realm of islam where muslims rule) and dar al harb (the land of war where non-muslims rule). And in dar al harb - this is the land where muslims are in the state of continual war until sharia laws become the laws of the land.

We keep hearing it from muslims all the time, and it is in the koran to keep fighting us until muslims win. eternal war.
  • Only Islam Acceptable-> 3:85
  • No friends from outsiders-> 3:118
  • No friends with Jews, Christians-> 5:51
  • No friends with non believers->4:114 3:28
  • No friends with parents/siblings if not believers-> 9:23
  • Fight non-believers-> 9:123
  • Kill non-believers-> 4:89
  • Cast terror in the hearts, smite the neck and cut fingertips of unbelievers-> 8:12
  • smite the neck of unbelievers->47:4
  • Punishing for rejecting faith-> 3:91
    *** Threat of punishment for not going to war-> 9:38-39 48:16**
  • Intentionally preventing unbelievers from knowing the truth-> 6:25 6:110
  • Intentionally preventing unbelievers from Understanding Qur’an-> 17:45-76
  • killing Christians: 2:190-193, 2:216-217, 2:244-245, 4:74-77, 4:95-96, 5:51, 5:72-73, 8:12-15, 8:37-39, 9:5,
    9:41, 9:73, 9:123, 22:38-39, 25:52, 47:4, 48:29, 60:4, 61:9-11, 66:9
  • Its Bukhari b9, v86, n101 mohammad: “Silence is consent.”
islam is deception
 
Walid said:
Possible, but if it is the case she has just focused in the example an forget about the rest.
And it is just an example anyone can bring others.
Click to expand...
What do you mean? You want more examples of why the UK has cameras on its corners?
 
Reuben_J said:
Thanks for the explanation. As I said when I welcome bro Walid, I would also like to learn through the questions he asked.

Though I may not agree with Islam in principle and in many things about it, I thought I would be enriched if I know what it is as explained by a Muslim. Therefore your explanation helps.

If you would not mind but do not feel oblige, I like to pose further questions for some clarification.

If the cutting of a hand of a thief is from Islamic teaching, then how could there be better punishment? Sorry, I am quite confused by your statement.

My question is what is Islam’s position of a handicap in a society? I suppose a handicap due to the punishment he/she received, must be very humiliated as he/she advertises her crime by the sign (the missing limb) she/he carries with her for the rest of her life. What does Islam say about this?
Click to expand...
Walid said:
I asked the same question in an Islamic forum with the same reasoning the anwser was that when the Sharia or Islamic law was applied the cases of theft were very rare, eg in four centuries when Islam was in it’s “Golden era” less than 10 people had their hand cut, since the zaket or Islamic charity( giving the money to poor people was an obligation) made poverty non-existant, further Muslims were helpful to each other .

I may develop this point of view further:

==> Like the way American generals in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when
hundred of thousands died and more suffered, but in return maybe more saved lives even if most of them were innocent civilans. So they stopped the whole war and they saved lives but surely a lot of money.

So if we draw a parallel to the act of cutting the hand==> the image may become clearer and plausible because the society will not have the need of heightened security which will cost a lot like the million of cameras(+ their operators ) in London and as matter of fact it will flourish quicker.

To sum up I think that the same rational may be applicable to the rest of the points.

A French proverb says in cases like that “a necessary evil”
And you do not apply it may become worse.
Click to expand...
Thank bro for the comment on this. My initial intention was to ask for information on Islamic practices and belief from Muslims in the forum. It would not be fair to them if I give my personal comment. I would accept what they tell me as Islamic practices and belief though I have my on personal opinion on them. I do not want to be like some Muslim posters here who do not understand at all our explanation of Christian belief despite the fact we have explained to them umpteen of times.

Since you want to discuss further I would be glad to contribute some humble comments of my own.

From Christianity point of view, the concept of ‘necessary evil’ is unChristian. Only God can do that when he died for the sins of mankind. But to ‘sacrifice’ another human for the sin of other is unChristian because sin is personal.

As I see the way you put it, the cutting of hand is a deterrent in the long run but nevertheless need to be implemented. This is unjust and unfair and not consistent with the justice of God. You cannot have a scapegoat to be punished so that others will not do it. Beside there are still thousand others who do it (steal) and not get caught and so not punished. God loves every single human and each one is no different to him.

The cutting of hands also is very cruel and vindictive without a hint of forgiveness. Modern science in Psychology has proved that this kind of punishment does not work. There are better method of rehabilitation of thieves and criminals so that they can eventually be assimilated to the society and lead normal lives.

Therefore my conclusion is that the law concerned is obviously not divine but more of a seventh century human wisdom.

God bless.
 
Reuben_J said:
Thank bro for the comment on this. My initial intention was to ask for information on Islamic practices and belief from Muslims in the forum. It would not be fair to them if I give my personal comment. I would accept what they tell me as Islamic practices and belief though I have my on personal opinion on them. I do not want to be like some Muslim posters here who do not understand at all our explanation of Christian belief despite the fact we have explained to them umpteen of times.

Since you want to discuss further I would be glad to contribute some humble comments of my own.

From Christianity point of view, the concept of ‘necessary evil’ is unChristian. Only God can do that when he died for the sins of mankind. But to ‘sacrifice’ another human for the sin of other is unChristian because sin is personal.

As I see the way you put it, the cutting of hand is a deterrent in the long run but nevertheless need to be implemented. This is unjust and unfair and not consistent with the justice of God. You cannot have a scapegoat to be punished so that others will not do it. Beside there are still thousand others who do it (steal) and not get caught and so not punished. God loves every single human and each one is no different to him.

The cutting of hands also is very cruel and vindictive without a hint of forgiveness. Modern science in Psychology has proved that this kind of punishment does not work. There are better method of rehabilitation of thieves and criminals so that they can eventually be assimilated to the society and lead normal lives.

Therefore my conclusion is that the law concerned is obviously not divine but more of a seventh century human wisdom.

God bless.
Click to expand...
A punishment not fitting of the crime commited. The punishment is permanent, no room for forgiveness, no rehabilitatio, and if that person is a family man, the family suffers too. What if the person stole a dollar, does he get the same punishment? I hope not.
 
Walid said:
Thanks for the clarification about the president. But on the other hand everyone helps his country when it is in a state of war.
Click to expand...
Yes, when permission was sought from the president Harry S. truman, he did not sign the paper for three days.

Besides, the warning was given to the Japanese to stop the war immediately, that was to end the war and not to spread it. But the Japs ignored that warning and felt that they were winning. But they were actually losing the battle anyhow because of the high altitude, pilotless aircraft of the Americans which were laced with special Cameras, photographing the Japanese territory. Since the Japs could not shoot those planes, it meant that they had already lost the war.

The american technology was far advanced comapared to the Japanese. The development of the Neuclar reactor and the atom bomb, beside many other things was in favor of the Americans. The Americans had broken the Yellow Code i.e. the secret message coding system of the Japs too.

There was no point in continuing the war. It would have killed many more poor innocent persons. So a serious drastic step had to be taken by the Americans i.e. use of atom bomb.
 
planten said:
Yes, when permission was sought from the president Harry S. truman, he did not sign the paper for three days.

Besides, the warning was given to the Japanese to stop the war immediately, that was to end the war and not to spread it. But the Japs ignored that warning and felt that they were winning. But they were actually losing the battle anyhow because of the high altitude, pilotless aircraft of the Americans which were laced with special Cameras, photographing the Japanese territory. Since the Japs could not shoot those planes, it meant that they had already lost the war.

The american technology was far advanced comapared to the Japanese. The development of the Neuclar reactor and the atom bomb, beside many other things was in favor of the Americans. The Americans had broken the Yellow Code i.e. the secret message coding system of the Japs too.

There was no point in continuing the war. It would have killed many more poor innocent persons. So a serious drastic step had to be taken by the Americans i.e. use of atom bomb.
Click to expand...
Though you may have a point there, nevertheless, this is all human wisdom and not from the ever loving God. I have no objection if those laws were made by Mohammad or the Caliphs in the seventh century.

ferdie:
Exactly. The punishment is unjust and cruel. That’s my question - how could Allah be so cruel and ruthless to sinners and indirectly to the sinners’ families?
 
Walid said:
Thanks for the clarification about the president. But on the other hand everyone helps his country when it is in a state of war.
Click to expand...
Not in America.

We have conscientious objectors who are released from the obligation of military service based on their beliefs.

Our military is voluntary.
 
Cuting of hand is applied in case.

that if person steel not for his basic needs,
people are given proper oppurtunity to earn

if u just gona give tap on criminal back and let him go he ll be encouraged to do the crime again and again
 
Xiaahmad said:
Cuting of hand is applied in case.

that if person steel not for his basic needs,
people are given proper oppurtunity to earn

if u just gona give tap on criminal back and let him go he ll be encouraged to do the crime again and again
Click to expand...
Punishment that commensurate with the crime and rehabilitation of criminals are the solution, my friend Otherwise both ways you are still using the seventh century method – either too harsh or simply arbitrarily.
 
Reuben_J said:
ferdie:
Exactly. The punishment is unjust and cruel. That’s my question - how could Allah be so cruel and ruthless to sinners and indirectly to the sinners’ families?
Click to expand...
Allah is not cruel, Allah is loving and forgiving. Allah is very good and very kind. But yes, when people have sins there’re some consequences for what they have done. But it’s all for their good nothing else.
 
As a Muslim who also has some concerns with Islam, I have been reading this thread with great interest. Perhaps, this thread is even providential. Please understand that I am not a novice, as regards familiarity with Shari’ah. My concerns are related to the proclivity to violence that appears to exist in Islam. I wonder why Muhammad did not be patient when persecuted, like Christ did (even unto death). I am not a passivist and understand conflict is sometimes justified. However (for example), God permitting a man to beat his wife (even lightly) seems wrong. The closing of the door of Ijtihad in the 13 century is also a huge problem for me, also. Islam seems to require us to become 7th century Arabs to truly live Islam. There is very little permission to practise Islam within ones own cultural context. For example, modesty is an important spiritual principle in Islam and Christianity. The difference is that Islam allows little flexibility in the practice of modesty. Christianity has much more. I do understand that there are differences. I am, specifically, references the degree of flexibility. Most religiously-observant Muslim women that I know feel that the Hijab is mandatory in most occassions (when around non-Maharim males). I personally think that a woman can be modest without a Hijab and, in fact, modesty is seated in the heart.
I will be interested in replies.
Finally, the following statement is incorrect.

“Rape does not require ANY witnesses for the rapist to be punished.”

According to all four schools of thought, rape would have to be proved by 4 witnesses that saw (please excuse the graphic comment) actual insertion. In the Maliki school for example, one of the strongest opinions is that the women would need to prove the rape with 4 witnesses or be punished. This may sound amazing, but look it up if you doubt. 😦
 
Eichenb2 and Walid your comments are much appreciated. Eichenb2, you will be walking on a dangerous road if you compare Muhammad to Jesus 😛

regarding the 4 witnesses, that’s what i read and quoted it, but could be there is no concensus in islam regarding it?

After all, men are in trouble if the woman’s testimony is the only proof, don’t you think?🤷
 
There is absolute consensus on the 4 witnesses. Also, the link was to a story about a 13yr old girl in Somalia that stoned to death, after (it was reported) she was raped. No matter how you spin that, a little girl/young lady was killed. Given the Shari’ah and my perception of human behavior, I certainly do accept that this young lady could have been raped and the men accused simply swore by Allah that they didn’t do it and got off. This is an example of my problems with Islam.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top