What does freedom mean to a Muslim

[redmars3000]

i can give you millions of examples without proofs will you accept it?

What kind of proof are you talking about. Examples are evidence that points to proof.
DO you want me to magically pull out a deductive proof? Is that the kind of proof you want?

 

[redmars3000]

first those translations of meaning of quran not quran itself
now let me ask you ,according to you if any one desire a religion other than catholicism ,will he be accepted by God?

You lost Ahmadhassan. She flat out called you out. “Translations of meaning quran, not quran itself.” And then a quick reversal of the subject. You will not convince any minds this way.

You lost the debate.

 

[hosemonkey]

What kind of proof are you talking about. Examples are evidence that points to proof.
DO you want me to magically pull out a deductive proof? Is that the kind of proof you want?

Amadhassan does not know what deductive proofs are. He wants proofs that moslems are not murdering thugs who follow a false religion. He’s not going to find any. And, if you DO prove that moslems are murdering thugs, he will not believe you.

 

[paarsurrey]

Can you define this mischief?

Hi
It is the same general principle, which every body that lives in a Western country should observe, live there peacefully as a normal citizen of that country, faithful to the state/constitution and should in no case be involved in any sabotage/terrorist activities. Anybody who works against the state and has links with the enemies of the state is a mischief monger, he would be punished anywhere in the world and rightly so, so should he be in an Islamic country.I think you please understand, it is reasonable.
Thanks

The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.
You might like to read
alislam.org/books/
Introduction to the Study of The Holy Quran (English)

 

[PauloFreire2]

talk without proofs = brainwashing

How about 911? Is that proof?

 

[hosemonkey]

Hi
It is the same general principle, which every body that lives in a Western country should observe, live there peacefully as a normal citizen of that country, faithful to the state/constitution and should in no case be involved in any sabotage/terrorist activities. Anybody who works against the state and has links with the enemies of the state is a mischief monger, he would be punished anywhere in the world and rightly so, so should he be in an Islamic country.I think you please understand, it is reasonable.

The problem lies in the government’s definition of what “working against the state” really means. It can mean listening to western music, reading western books, using the Internet or being a Christian. Whatever “working against the State” happens to mean. Countless examples of abuse can be found. Islamic countries have no concept of freedom in the western sense. Any country that is forced to use “religious police” is not in possession of “freedom.”

 

[paarsurrey]

And back to an original question, why was fighting permitted when Muhammad was 53 and older when he didn’t fight before?

Hi
This is a question to ponder? right.
I think you agree that Muhammad had a marvelous record of a peace loving person for 40+13+2=55 years, he joined in welfare activities if there was any in Mecca, he helped the needy and in distress, he stood for the human cause, he never harmed any person. His record in these 55 years is clean by any standards.
The first forty years i.e. before he was appointed ProphetMessenger by GodAllahYHWH has been offered as reasonable argument/challenge in Quran before Infidels-of-Mecca, and they could not deny its truthfulness: Quran 10:17
17. Say, ‘If Allah had so willed, I should not have recited it (Quran) to you nor would He (Allah) have made it known to you. I have indeed lived among you a whole lifetime* before this (revelation). Will you not then understand?’ Unquote

• JesusYeshuaIssa had according to my Christian friends lived for only 33 years.
  Thanks
  The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.

You might like to read
alislam.org/books/
Introduction to the Study of The Holy Quran (English)

 

[Verisimilitude]

Hi
This is a question to ponder? right.
I think you agree that Muhammad had a marvelous record of a peace loving person …is clean by any standards.

I will agree he was an average Arab in the 7th Century until the first revelation came to him.

The first forty years i.e. before he was appointed ProphetMessenger by GodAllahYHWH has been offered as reasonable argument/challenge in Quran before Infidels-of-Mecca, and they could not deny its truthfulness: Quran 10:17
17. Say, ‘If Allah had so willed, I should not have recited it (Quran) to you nor would He (Allah) have made it known to you. I have indeed lived among you a whole lifetime* before this (revelation). Will you not then understand?’ Unquote

The Meccans did deny the truthfullness of Islam. That is why they boycotted his clan and why he fled to Medina.

And back to an original question, **why was fighting permitted when Muhammad was 53 and older **when he didn’t fight before?

 

[Nighthaven]

why dont you say the reverse ? usa invaded iraq ,muslims are killed in shechania ,jews took land of muslims “palestine” when we do something to reback our land and resist occupation you call us terrorists open your eye

In reponse to that quote I’ll quote this from Jimmy Akins site: ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/jakin_crusades_sept06.asp

In A.D. 612, the Arabian Muhammad, son of Abdallah, reported receiving a prophetic call from God through the angel Gabriel. At first, he made few converts. However, after being driven from his native Mecca in 622, he found refuge in the city of Medina, where his followers increased. Mounting a military campaign, Muhammad conquered several pagan, Jewish, and Christian tribes and was able to seize control of his native Mecca, as well as all of Arabia. He died in 632.

Following his death, Muhammad’s successors–the caliphs–continued an aggressive campaign of expansion. In less than a century they had seized control–among other lands–of Syria, Palestine, and North Africa. Though today we are used to thinking of these lands as Muslim, at the time they were Christian. It has been said that the expanding Muslim empire consumed half of Christian civilization. Even Europe itself was threatened. Muslims seized control of southern Spain, invaded France, and were threatening to invade Rome itself when their advance was defeated by Charles Martel at the battle of Poitiers in 732.

After Muslim expansion in Western Europe had been checked for the moment, their attention for a time turned elsewhere, and within two more centuries they had conquered Persia (Iran), Afghanistan, Pakistan, and parts of India. They also later advanced against Christian nations, conquering the Byzantine Empire in 1453 and encroaching as far as Vienna, Austria in 1683.

With this in mind I say the Muslim’s should return all stolen lands back to the Pagans/Jews/Christians before we begin to talk about the Palestine situation. If the Jews were at fault, they were only going by the example the Muslim’s set forth. Of course, there is really no land that is Muslim; it had to be taken from someone to begin with.

So what I see when Palestinians cry, bomb, kill or whatever to get their suppossed land back, I see hypocrisy. I see the Jews beating you at your own game.

 

[BelFarfalla]

first those translations of meaning of quran not quran itself
now let me ask you ,according to you if any one desire a religion other than catholicism ,will he be accepted by God?

So now we are not supposed to believe in valid translations of the Qur’an???

Then that means that the Qur’an and hence Islam is not a religion for all people of all time. Instead it is only for those who spoke the dialect of arabic at the time that the Qur’an was written.Even Arabs have struggled with issues of what words some of the dialet of the qur’an really means.

So much for Islam I guess.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Detractors of Islam need to first get their facts right about the Qur’an.

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things… 002.256

The above verse is NOT Meccan but is a Medinian verse… and you can read the background history of Surah Al-Baqarah here to learn more.

And so, the whole argument that you have made against this “**Let there be no compulsion in religion… **” verse in the Qur’an becomes totally invalid as a result of it being revealed in Medina and not much earlier in Mecca.

It was revealed in the first two years in Medina… before all hell broke loose.

 

[BelFarfalla]

**
hamba2han**:

Freedom of speech has it’s limits and does not include the right to insult or incite.

If you believe that freedom of speech has limits that exclude the right to insult, then why do you come here and insult us, our God, Jesus and all else that we hold dear?

I know that the answer is that your idea of the limits on freedom of speech is that no one should be allowed to say anything you disagree with. But you have the audacity to post insult after insult here.
**

 

[ahmadhassan]

So now we are not supposed to believe in valid translations of the Qur’an???

Then that means that the Qur’an and hence Islam is not a religion for all people of all time. Instead it is only for those who spoke the dialect of arabic at the time that the Qur’an was written.Even Arabs have struggled with issues of what words some of the dialet of the qur’an really means.

So much for Islam I guess.

open new thread and i will answer you ,dont change topic so that i forget the current topic

 

[Subrosa]

if you put the verse in context you will understand that cease is referring to stop fighting muslims

((2:191. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [1] is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-Al-Harâm (the sanctuary at Makkah),[2] unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

1. But if they cease, then Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
2. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[3] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers)))

This still says to kill poytheists. You have stated publicly on this forum that christians are polytheists.

Are you willing to kill any christian because you believe that christian to be a polytheist?

How do you explain these news articles?

christiansofiraq.com/egyptkilledAp146.html

militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1177

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4366232.stm

 

[BelFarfalla]

open new thread and i will answer you ,dont change topic so that i forget the current topic

I was only responding to your nonsense that we should not pay attention of valid translations of the Qur’an because they are not in Arabic. If you don’t want the subject changed, then don’t change the subject yourself.
As for opening a separate thread on this, I wouldn’t waste my time. I’ve had this discussion over and over and over and over till it makes me sick. Muslims claim that only the Arabic version of the Qur’an is accurate so all Muslims must learn Arabic. But this does not make any difference because in learning a new language, we would still learn the same meaning of the words are they are in the English translations. Nothing will have changed. the only reason Muslims make such a comment about it being a translation is when they want to avoid responding to the obvious violence and hate in the Qur’an.

 

[ahmadhassan]

I was only responding to your nonsense that we should not pay attention of valid translations of the Qur’an because they are not in Arabic. If you don’t want the subject changed, then don’t change the subject yourself.
As for opening a separate thread on this, I wouldn’t waste my time. I’ve had this discussion over and over and over and over till it makes me sick. Muslims claim that only the Arabic version of the Qur’an is accurate so all Muslims must learn Arabic. But this does not make any difference because in learning a new language, we would still learn the same meaning of the words are they are in the English translations. Nothing will have changed. the only reason Muslims make such a comment about it being a translation is when they want to avoid responding to the obvious violence and hate in the Qur’an.

did i changed the subject? i wasnt using qur`an as proof but you did ,so i said that:thumbsup:

 

[ahmadhassan]

This still says to kill poytheists. You have stated publicly on this forum that christians are polytheists.

Are you willing to kill any christian because you believe that christian to be a polytheist?

How do you explain these news articles?

christiansofiraq.com/egyptkilledAp146.html

militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1177

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4366232.stm

shall we judge religion by its teachings or its followers?

 

[Verisimilitude]

shall we judge religion by its teachings or its followers?

Both. If the followers are doing as the teachings mandate, or if they are not.

When a Muslim flies a plane into a building, explodes himself in a Jewish market in Israel, or beheads a journalist in Iraq, is he doing as Islam dictates or not? When a Christian blows up an abortion clinic, calls homosexuals names, or explodes a bomb in Ireland, is he doing as the New Testament dictates or not?

I can answer no to the Christian in each case. Can you answer for the Muslim?

 

[eleonardo]

shall we judge religion by its teachings or its followers?

When suicide bombers run into a crowd of innocent civilians with bombs strapped to their waste and yell “Alahu akbar” upon explosion, I imagine they are doing so with conviction of their own faith?

 

[BelFarfalla]

did i changed the subject? i wasnt using qur`an as proof but you did ,so i said that:thumbsup:

Yep you said that it was only a translation… so you basically said that a translation of the qur’an is useless.