Don't carry out attacks inside Pakistan as it is not jihad

Alpha1

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2013
Messages
406
Likes
62
Given that these people say they do it in the name of Islam, then why not judge.
No,
If someone takes a pistol and shoots someone and takes the name of Lord shiva doing it, Can we judge hinduism on the basis of Individual action of that person?
If you say that kill me because am a kaffir then I have a problem :)
Islam doesnt alow the killing of Innocent , whether they are Hindu, muslim, sikh or atheist!
 

The Last Stand

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
1,406
Likes
980
Country flag
No,
If someone takes a pistol and shoots someone and takes the name of Lord shiva doing it, Can we judge hinduism on the basis of Individual action of that person?
That has never happened before and it is a very unlikely thing. Compare that to Islamic extremists who shout Allahu Akbar and eat their own kin in Syria. Compare that to the hundreds of Islamic terrorist organizations who train people to kill "Kaffirs".

Think about what has happened until now. Not what will happen in the future.

And sarcasm won't help your reputation.
 

The Fox

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
457
Likes
270
The question still remains is attack inside Pakistan is not Jihad ? Is Pakistan is any special place (earlier a Hindu land) ?

Why not to add a poll to see whether attacks inside Pakistan is Jihad or not ?
this is a act of desperation they created a Frankenstein Monster which is in the processes of killing its own master all we need to do is to keep the monster away from our borders and sit and watch it kill their master if possible direct the Monster to the masters Hiding place.....
 

The Fox

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
457
Likes
270
No,
If someone takes a pistol and shoots someone and takes the name of Lord shiva doing it, Can we judge hinduism on the basis of Individual action of that person?

Islam doesn't allow the killing of Innocent , whether they are Hindu, muslim, sikh or atheist!
that will never happened in India every one who fires a bullet or a RPG shout the name of Allah before doing it do u see any Naxail doing it or any others doing it or are the Christians shout the name of Jesus or Mary before pulling the trigger...........
 

JBH22

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
6,496
Likes
17,873
No,
If someone takes a pistol and shoots someone and takes the name of Lord shiva doing it, Can we judge hinduism on the basis of Individual action of that person?
if one person does that its not right but however if a group of people start doing it and the majority of the community remains silent, then its not unfair if people start judging

Islam doesnt alow the killing of Innocent , whether they are Hindu, muslim, sikh or atheist!
No and in your country its proven on a daily basis.
 

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
or @Alpha1 pls take a look at the thread China's Malacca Dilemma related to Gwadar
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Not the Sword!


Sir,I see nothing wrong in Peacefully propogating Islam...
Never said the Sword!

If you see nothing wrong in propagating the religion, you contradict your earlier post.
 

Himanshu Pandey

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2011
Messages
176
Likes
85
Who told you so?
The Quran also says that there is NO force in religion. IT IS NOT ALLOWED TO FORCEFULLY CONVERT PEOPLE!
Islam has a complete legal system based on Quran and hadith!!
forcable conversion was one of the main reasons for spreading islam during medivial time and in todays pakistan(from 20 % its minorties are now 2 %) so don't sell which nobody buys...eveybody knows Islam was spread on sword first in every part of world including arabs.
Are you saying its a human right to rape and murder, loot and plunder? This is what Quran meant by Mischief!
but people whom islamic terrorist kills are not people of crime but people of different religion or moderate muslims... and Muslim Ulema agrees with these killings so it don't looks like the definition of mischief is same as you are trying to give.

a piece of advise:- everybody knows the truth, don't try to give lies as truth. we all know all muslims are not terrorist but we also know that 99 % terrorist are muslims. we know all muslims don't want to live in middle ages again but we also know that its only a lot of your people of all the people of world who want to go back to middle ages. most of the world don't take religion too seriously but only muslims take it very seriously in wrong way and best proof is their still believing and narrating gazwa-e-hind... which is a impossibility and can be possible with ensured mutual destruction of world( from nuclear weapons and nuclear winter which fallows.

so stop this lying.. we know the truth
 

Alpha1

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2013
Messages
406
Likes
62
forcable conversion was one of the main reasons for spreading islam during medivial time
Any proof?
Infact, Islam was spread by Sufis in the Subcontinent! And i dont think you accuse sufis of being voilent!
and in todays pakistan(from 20 % its minorties are now 2 %)
They all accepted Islam! So what?
It is illogical for any muslim who knows ABC of his religion to forcibly convert someone!
so don't sell which nobody buys...
Islam teaches us to speak the truth, regardless if anybody buys or not!
eveybody knows Islam was spread on sword first in every part of world including arabs.
Islam is known for winning hearts and minds it doesnt need swords! Infact the early enemies of Islam i.e. The Arabs of mecca were very voilent, The prophet was stonned, beaten and abused yet he never thought bad of them. For 10 years he tolerated them, not even raising his hands. And then he migrated to Medina when Some Enemies conspired to kill him.
When he captured Makkah he forgave everyone.
but people whom islamic terrorist kills are not people of crime but people of different religion or moderate muslims... and Muslim Ulema agrees with these killings so it don't looks like the definition of mischief is same as you are trying to give.
first of all, there is no such thing as Islamic terrorist. ISLAM means Peace,, terrorism and peace are two diffrent things!
Islam is not responsible for ONE OR TWO MAD MULLAHS!
a piece of advise:- everybody knows the truth, don't try to give lies as truth. we all know all muslims are not terrorist but we also know that 99 % terrorist are muslims.
from where did you get those stats
we know all muslims don't want to live in middle ages again
Define middle ages please!
but we also know that its only a lot of your people of all the people of world who want to go back to middle ages. most of the world don't take religion too seriously but only muslims take it very seriously in wrong way and best proof is their still believing and narrating gazwa-e-hind... which is a impossibility and can be possible with ensured mutual destruction of world( from nuclear weapons and nuclear winter which fallows.
If there is No religion, who will define what is good and what is Not?
Btw Scientists have dispute over the concept of Nuclear Winter!
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
It is illogical for any muslim who knows ABC of his religion to forcibly convert someone!
Ask the Tablighi!

Islam was spread by Sufis in the Subcontinent! And i dont think you accuse sufis of being voilent!
Coercion through jezia was also another way and that cannot be denied.

Also, the social inequality that caste imposed on lower caste Hindus encouraged these classes to embrace the more egalitarian Islam.

Islam teaches us to speak the truth, regardless if anybody buys or not!
I am yet to know of which religion manifests telling lies as a mandatory virtue.

In Islam, there is also leeway to 'hide the truth', to put it politely. And that is

Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to "smooth over differences."

There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.

The Qur'an:
Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.

Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves."

Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Qur'an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.

Qur'an (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts" The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.

Qur'an (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths"

Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.



From the Hadith:

Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad's men after he "guaranteed" them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).

Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.

Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an "enemy."

Muslim (32:6303) - "...he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."

Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.

From Islamic Law:

Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "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 (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression...

"One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.

Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true.

Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.

At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, belying the probability that they were mostly unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).

Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe. The fate of the Jadhima is tragic evidence for this. When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others were convinced that they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

Today's Muslims often try to justify Muhammad's murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.

Leaders in the Arab world routinely say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic. Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.

The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of 'hypocrisy.'

The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is "a bomb on board" but that everyone will "be safe" as long as "their demands are met." Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to "slay and be slain for the cause of Allah" (as the Qur'an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it "has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization." In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas. At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.

Prior to engineering several deadly terror plots, such as the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was regularly sought out by NPR, PBS and even government leaders to expound on the peaceful nature of Islam.

The near absence of Qur'anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty. In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that many Muslims are quite honest. When lying is addressed in the Qur'an, it is nearly always in reference to the "lies against Allah" - referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad's claim to being a prophet.

Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran's nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.

TheReligionofPeace - Islam: Taqiyya and Lying
I would request you not to initiate issues on religion that can be 'uncomfortable'..

Religion, any religion, is basically for the good of man.

Let us keep it that way.
 

arnabmit

Homo Communis Indus
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
6,242
Likes
7,522
Country flag
Become an Atheist... even an Agnostic... The world would be such a better place!

My personal view is that in the 21st century, religion does nothing else but to spread hate and terror and work as an anti-globalization force.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top