Random Politics & Religion #00

I'm correcting your ignorant points with scriptural and historic facts. Which is why you've resorted to the method of bringing up Old Testament violence that I've already said, was different historically, in purpose and context and is not in effect today. Not my opinion, again scriptural fact.

Al-Qaida Urged Its Followers to Take Advantage of U.S. Gun Laws
Slate

Excerpt:
Once again America's right wing and the worst elements of Islam are in perfect agreement.

Appearing in scriptures doesn't make it factual. If anything, it calls it more into question.

I don't see how you can call me ignorant about scripture or history if you're going to conflate the two constantly.

The GO-AT

That's not how you approach the issue.

That's like quoting the Quran, providing your own interpretation, and then, when I contradict yours with other scholar's interpretations, you say: "are you telling me these scholar's hold more weight than God?!"

"Bukhari" is a book of narrations, not a jurisprudence book.

What did you understand from my words? Obviously Muslims fought wars (Jihad) in the early days to facilitate the spread of Islam, but we don't view them in such negative light, neither in why nor in how they were carried out. I don't lose sleep over it. Whether you find it justified or not is a different topic. The point that matters is: we don't believe it applies to our current times, for several reasons (except ISIS maybe). You insist that we do. I don't know what to tell you lol. Go read the Jihad section in the letter to Albaghdadi if you haven't.

You can't be a Muslim without the hadiths. A lot of the Quran makes no sense without the commentaries.
Show me in the Quran where it says how to do the 5 pillars of Islam.
Show me where it tells you to pray 5 times a day what direction and the methods.


So you agree with jihad solely to spread the message. What makes you not agree with it now then?
Can you show me a later passage than ultimatum that stops people following what Mohammed required of Muslims?
Give your evidence and stop hiding behind lies, people are getting educated on Islam. You can't hide this anymore.

Again your opinion and the opinion of recent scholars means nothing when reviewing the bases of scripture. Is this the word of God or not?
I go to the sources and its people Those sources say to follow.
Like Christianity I don't go to the pope to tell me what Jesus said to do. And I don't acknowledge that the pope can overturn gods commands on his say so. I go to the scripture.
The same In this case I go to Quran and Muhammad and the first 3 generations after that it says to go to. Unless your saying you have the authority to do away with gods word depending on the current situation.

In which case your calling Muhammad a liar and these generations liars and in turn Allah a liar.

If your going down this route i support it totally. And would ask you pray and you ask God whether Allah is true or jesus is true.

Except that he's factually wrong.

Care to elaborate?

Can you stop and think for a second before you post what you post?

You think you're intimidating your opponent by pretending to be knowledgeable about Islam, by displaying knowledge, without knowing where/how to apply that bit of knowledge. This is actually worse than admitting to your ignorance.

Take a moment and check what "Jurisprudence" is. "Bukhari" is (one of, although the most accepted) a book of narrations. These narrations, along with texts from the Quran, and other methodology, are used to derive rulings.

Because we can deliver the message without the need to losing lives on either side? Because it's possible in this age?

Muslims are supposed to honor their agreements and respect their treaties, and the modern world is built around this.

Other reasons for jihad would be defending your land, or helping other oppressed Muslims in non-Muslim lands.

1- Insisting that I need a "passage" is another proof that you have no idea how rulings are derived in Islam.
2- You dismissed whatever examples of texts I listed earlier on whimsical interpretation.

That's a baseless statement, it implies that:
- You exhausted the topic, being the scholar you are, to find "consensus" or "ijma'".
- Recent scholars can't do "ijtihad", either absolutely, or because this issue cannot be subject to ijtihad.

Ah, that's also a field of jurisprudence or Fiqh.

Your problem is that you think you've dissected Islamic sciences, dismiss scholarly opinion, and insist on a simpleton's approach to the complex issues in the religion that involve politics.

That's the ISIS approach, which you've been trying to apply to all Muslims across all times and places.

The flow of your logic is weird.

No problem. Admittedly, there's niche blurbs thrown out for my own amusement. Regal history is a weird fascination that has a few millennia of imprintment on history. Sometimes, that's one of the only perspective by which you can only put the puzzle pieces together by first-hand account, if not by the opposition. Weirdly enough, if you get into regal-by-name-principality heirs, you start delving into a more honest interpretation of history.

It's a strange fascination with contemporaries and predecessors holding names that have sculpted Western society for the good and the bad. I don't know how to explain it, but there's one, singular instance that I can lovingly thank my grandfather for that abruptly ended my idea of princes and princesses and thrusted it into a more socio-political-religious understanding of Europe as it was and (to a lesser extent) as it is now.

Reality can be stranger than fiction.

As for the bolded, sometimes I wonder if people legitimately lose sight of this.

As for the "imperialism" comment, no worries. I'll just say it. It was a backhand at Savael, because he blocked me over imperialism in Africa in terms of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and the underpinnings Rwanda. Everyone should wear a Savael BL like a badge of honor! Don your best Maori war face and gets to getting!

You can't answer any of my questions, just baseless mocking rebuttals with no evidence


You couldn't do that in 600AD+?
The Jews and pagans weren't fighting when Muhammed was spreading this peacefully like recorded in the Quran, hadiths and historic records.


The hadiths ie; buhkari are needed to
1.know how to follow Mohammed?
2.know how to be a Muslim.
You can't be a Muslim without them.
Please show me where in the Quran it shows how to preform prayers.
Show me where in the Quran it shows muhammeds life and learning from him. Show me the details of the 5 pillars of Islam in just the Quran.
Stop dodging the question.
I answered your quotes they have been abrogated by sura 9:5 like Muhammed, buhkari and followers said and did.
Your either using taqiyya or are making up your own religion on your western desires.
In which case I see your interpretation and your opinion of what Islam is and what Muslims should follow.
Some watered down version where the modern world takes priority and allahs word needs to change to appease it.
The same authority the Roman Catholic Church runs by. I get it.
Some sort of fake, man made version that can be changed on the whim of man. Without scriptural authority.
I'm not here warning people about your fake version, I'm here warning about people who take the scripture as Gods word and act and think on that word as it plainly tells people to do.

Fiqh has no authority on easy to read Quran and Hadith commands they are for laws they do not cover. Mentioning them here where we have easy to understand verses, hadiths and commentary and known sharia laws means nothing. And your trying to replace or change commends and laws you shouldn't.
Islam means 'submission to Allah', not submission on your terms.


I'm glad to see a Muslim admit that Islam is political. Maybe at least sesh and jassik will listen to a Muslim who apparently knows his stuff in their eyes.

Lol. Take three words completely out of context and pretend the same metric doesn't make Christianity political, too.

Give it up, I know you're a true believer, but your complete lack of introspection and stubborn adherence propaganda is getting boring.

I wonder who this "sesh" is.

So your disagreeing with him and islams own definition. Ok.
Can you show me something similar in the doctrine of Christianity in its teachings.

If its this part he is correct.

I can go to gun shows and buy M 16 and AK 47 lookalikes and derivatives. I can also buy at 95% of those gun shows a simple kit to convert either to full auto. I can do all of this without any background check or even showing ID in 49 states.

Need I remind you that one of the "modern sporting rifles" carried by the perpetrators of our most recent horror was so modified?

What Christian doctrines don't apply to your everyday life? Please please please tell me you aren't get this hung up over the difference in application of the word "law".

I guess it would be argued that just because you cannot legally buy the gun already fitted with the kit that getting ahold of the gun and kit and putting it in is impossible? If that's the line of thought, though, why are the kits allowed to be sold at all? On top of that, how much less effective is an AR or AK in semi-auto configuration?

I can show you lots of spiritual and moral laws.
Are you gonna show me where Christianity passes a political law meant to govern or not?
If your struggling with understanding the difference applications of the word law in this sense I suggest you stop now.
Please back up your claim, I've backed up mine in Islam.

Since most western governments are expressly secular, it's just the odd ones here and there that stand out like CoE clerics still being guaranteed a seat in England's parliament and government offices being closed on Sunday (this wasn't always the case, either). Prohibition, the original drug laws, anti-gay laws, anti-abortion laws, sodomy laws, decency laws, Texas's alternative origin curriculum, etc. Most of that is just since the end of the Victorian era. If you go back just a few centuries, you get into the really heavy stuff: mandatory church attendance, burning witches, court ordered exorcisms, the inquisition, blasphemy laws that imprisoned people like Newton, etc.

There is no situation where Islam is political when Christianity isn't. We don't have a government ruled by a religion like some Muslim countries, but you're also failing to acknowledge how many Muslim governments aren't violent or oppressive. Look at Indonesia, Bangladesh, Morocco, Uzbekistan, The Gambia, The Maldives... There's more Muslim countries not ruled by Sharia law than ones that are.

What? Maybe I don't understand your question but there have been a large amount of laws created just in the United States meant to enforce Christian moral religious laws. Not to mention other majority Christian countries.

Blue laws in the United States

Skimmed the list and saw mostly alcohol and gambling laws.
You don't need to be a Christian or any religion to recognise such things should be limited.
I'm sure freedom to take full uninhibited advantage of peoples addictions isn't the kind of freedom our forefathers had in mind.
That's probably the only reason those laws still exist long after the religious reason for them being made in the first place have been forgotten and replaced...

Its a set of parts and instructions all by themselves legal. You only break the law if you install them.

In destructive capabilities? IDK, I understand that in combat with the AR 15 burst mode is preferred, That's 3 shots in something like .3 or .4 seconds I know little about the AKs.

so as long as you agree with the religious law it's ok?



I really like not being able to make a choice on how to spend my money on a legal substance on a random day (Sunday) or at all because some counties decided it was bad for me based on their interpretation of Christianity.

Are you talking about the old testament laws of Moses?
I don't know those laws and don't live by them and I thank God that I have been given freedom from those set of laws.
Also sunday is not the Sabbath. Saturday is.

I'm talking about the example I just gave that you are perfectly ok with because it fits your world view.

It does?
You don't even know my "world views" so nice try on imposing your assumptions on me.

See the above underlined quote. That is what I'm referring to and why I underlined it in the first place.

You're outspoken as a Christian and agree with laws that "keep the Sabbath day".

I really don't give 2 shits about people not being able to spend their entire life buying booze and gambling at all hours of the day.

That is your own bad choices and you are free to fall on them your whole life.

What I do care about is stopping the organisations that knowingly take advantage of people with no self control.
Those people need to be stopped from taking advantage of the weak.

I want the weak to at least have a chance. If it were up to these money grubbing vice peddlers they would have you waste your whole life feeding them your every last resource.