American Student goes to Palestine to help only to find out the truth

Uh, if you can give me more than a millisecond, you'll see I did reply.

 

Northpoint is not a radical, he is very thoughtful and logical in his posts, he is also open and understanding in my experience. You'd be much better off losing the attitude, some here are willing to listen and learn if learning is an option

 

My mistake I replied before you posted, I'll address them now.

 

47:4: 4. Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah.s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.


8:12 is talking about during a state of war. Hence the chapter being called "Spoils of War" lol.

Good to see we have cleared that up.

 

What I find critical is the use of the word "unbeliever." In a state of war, by definition, an enemy is an enemy - why is the word "unbeliever" included in these passages? This tells me that there is at least some contributory factor to the state of being an unbeliever. And I have a problem with that.

An as I earlier said, it is the Wahabists, claiming to take the Qu'ran literally, who use these passages to do just that - for instance, to behead the likes of Daniel Pearl. Was he an enemy, waging war, with a weapon trained on Muslim warriors? Or, because he was an unbeliever, did this make him by definition an enemy?

Edited to add: Grab, your final comment was added as an edit, apparently. I am flatly not interested in winning arguments. I am interested in getting to the truth - it edifies my mind, and all others, hopefully. I don't shy from the truth, it, but neither do I don't seek polemic. If you want a good faith discussion, you might want to consider approaching from the same basis.

 

My own guess would be that they don't believe people of the same religion would be fighting a war, making the only people they would be fighting in war an 'unbeliever' which also could be losing it's meaning to a degree in translation.

I could be wrong though, but to me it does appear 'ok' as 'ok' as this type of stuff can get. Personally I don't like any of it, but will not berate people to believe what they want to 'if they do not use it for evil'

 

I do think you're right; that given the historical context, that Muhammed and early Muslims were engaged in war, from what I can remember, to survive as an early movement, "enemy" was "unbeliever." Which in a way is what I am saying - the historical context makes taking it literally, today, as al-Zarqawi claims to have done, ludicrous. But it doesn't rewrite what was actually said. And as many people claim the Qu'ran is a perfect, unflawed instrument, direct from God, I am wary of passages such as these. As I am with passages in the Bible that subjugate women, in my view. And so forth.

I am totally with you - I respect and support anyone's belief, so long as they leave me in peace.

 

That's a funny statement for someone that has a terrorist flag as their avatar.

The age of sexual consent for girls under Sharia law and Iran - within the confines of marriage - is nine

Why wouldn't we believe that Mohammed had sex with a 9 year old when it is perfertly legal according to sharia law?

This is referenced in a BBC article here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/5217424.stm

 

Totally agree with you, which is where I say there are radicals on all sides. Those like al-Zarqawi take it out of context to feed their fight, just as others on the other side take them out of context to bash the faith.

Then you have the peaceful muslims in this case who do not take it literally, trying to simply live in peace, but you've got people of their faith abusing their religious book and people of other religions doing the same thing by bashing them for it.

 

What's your point? It dosen't mean they have sex at the age of 9, in most countries around the world for sexual consent it is early teens, also you can't have sex unless you are married and most don't get married untill they are in the early 20's so once again you are talking garbage.

 

There is nothing "taken out of context", you can take the Quran literaly and not be a killer or murderer. These people don't take the Quran out of context, they are just murderers plain and simple, it has nothing to do with the Quran. If it wasn't possible to take literaly what would be the point in it. I have rebutted the verses that Northpoint made and other people have failed to show me these so called verses that tell you to kill innocent people....it is because these verses don't exist!

 

You can try to cover up child rape all you want but the fact is

The age of sexual consent for girls under Sharia law and Iran - within the confines of marriage - is nine

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/5217424.stm

 

Consent. Consent. Consent. I think you missed the word.....consent? You can not have sex unless you are married and people tend to not get married untill their early twenties.

In bold so you can understand it better.

 

Isn't true if you die in jihad killing the infidels you will be rewarded with 72 virgins?

 

Not true.

 

Online petition to stop child marriage in iran

http://www.petitiononline.com/farivar/petition.html

 

I could also find a petition to kick all retards out of the USA if you like...

 

2 things.

The first, I asked this before, but I don't believe it was answered, Grab. (Art least I don't think it was - apologies if so). If the Qu'ran was the final, complete revelation from God, what need for the Sharia - where many of these punishments (such as hanging a 16 year old "adultress") stem?

Secondly, I didn't know the law still said 9 year olds can be married. Given parents "consent" to their children's marriages in arranged marriages, I do have a big problem with such a law.

 

Heated post. Thier is always to sides to every story and you have to look at both of them

 

Grab, is Islam in the state of war as we speak?