Christian-Muslim Relations In the Middle-East

Rafidi

Rafidi

Legendary Member
accusing you? of what?
the question was begging to be asked, given that you seem to have been on steroids during ramadan.
How are western backed/engineered Takfiri terrorist groups related to Islam? Except if the KKK are to be considered the purest of Christians or the White supremacists to be considered a Christianity problem.
 
  • Advertisement
  • Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    How are western backed/engineered Takfiri terrorist groups related to Islam? Except if the KKK are to be considered the purest of Christians or the White supremacists to be considered a Christianity problem.
    and how do you characterize your own behavior during the month of ramadan if you want to evaluate it? was it defensive? or where you an a jihad spree? you only seem to have relaxed a bit when the month was over.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    and how do you characterize your own behavior during the month of ramadan if you want to evaluate it? was it defensive? or where you an a jihad spree? you only seem to have relaxed a bit when the month was over.
    What did I do?
     
    T

    Thoma

    New Member
    The word you interpret as "violation", what is it the word in Arabic in the verse?



    Fighting is forbidden. What does verse 194 you cited says? "If they attack you, attack them the way they attack you". Are you saying in order not to "violate" the holiness of the sacred months, Muslims should not respond even when attacked? So that you wont "indict" Allah ya habileh? That means in the holy months Muslims are vulnerable to being attacked and the enemies will know there shall be no response. Is that what you understand by "cessation of fighting"?

    Just FYI, in many cases where there is war or conflict, the purpose of declaring the four months sacred is to offer a truce or a ceasefire. In the military context, it is called a cease fire. But what if the ceasefire is violated? In order not to break the ceasefire both sides must cease fighting, right? What if the other side persists? So you expect the Muslims to "stubbornly" cling to not fighting even when they are under attack.

    Jews insisted that the Sabbath is holy and a day of rest, whereby all works must cease, and that holiness should be upheld by all means. Jesus went ahead to perform a miracle work and harvest grains with his hungry disciples on Sabbath and violated a law. So I am indicating Jesus of violating his "father's" commandment. That gave reasons for the Jews to further reject him. Why would Jesus violate the Sabbath that was made holy by his "father"?

    Attack me in the holy month, even as an individual, and you'd see what will befall your face. I will draw the map of Lebanon on your face if you attack me even when I'm fasting in the month of Ramadan. 😄
    We have seen in my previous post how the reality of Quran 2:217 stands independently of any other verse in the Quran. Now we shall see how the reality of that verse (is so damming that it) conditions any other preceding or succeeding verse that relates to it (such as the case of Quran 2:194, even when it is desperately assumed to have been revealed after rather than prior to Quran 2:217), and a reiteration of what that could possibly entail.

    Given that Quran 2:217 is saying essentially 'fighting in sacred months is a violation, but a violation that is less grave than some other violation because xyz', and Quran 2:194 saying 'fight defensively in sacred months', it then follows that the 'defensive fighting in sacred months' in Quran 2:194 is either A/ necessarily a violation to Allah when 'the fighting in sacred months that is a violation to Allah' in Quran 2:217 is defensive, or B/ not a violation to Allah when 'the fighting in sacred months that is a violation to Allah' in Quran 2:217 is offensive. With (A) Allah would be (indicted of) [ positively commanding violations against himself ], and with (B) Allah would be (indicted of) [ justifying, rather than condemning, a violation against himself, provided a certain condition (e.g. 'if it were to serve against a severer violation' or 'if it were less severe than some other violation') ].

    ---

    Thus, resorting to another verse related to Quran 2:217 such as Quran 2:194 doesn't resolve your problem. Besides [ banging your head against the wall, lashing it out at everyone, and hoping something somehow changes ], the only way for you to make the Quran assert 'self-defensive fighting in sacred months is not a violation to Allah' (as is Islamically historically established since the time it was a traditional pact prior to and after it being in the Quran) is to concede (B); the 'fighting' in Allah's statement in Quran 2:217 meant 'offensive fighting', is being a violation, and one that Allah is justifying and condoning. In this case, Allah isn't the direct violator of his own command of 'not to fight offensively in sacred months', rather someone else whom Allah is enabling and justifying in their violation of Allah's command is. Who might that 'someone else' be other than Muhammad and his companions, and as recounted in the corresponding hadith?
     
    Last edited:
    T

    Thoma

    New Member
    How can that video be relevant to this thread or a response to my post? It can be so in one way only; does 'hazihi al-ard lel-jamii' conform to Muhamad and the Quran? Does it conform to the precept of (the call of) spreading and maintaining Islam by force whenever and wherever this deems possible?
     
    Orangina

    Orangina

    Legendary Member
    How can that video be relevant to this thread or a response to my post? It can be so in one way only; does 'hazihi al-ard lel-jamii' conform to Muhamad and the Quran? Does it conform to the precept of (the call of) spreading and maintaining Islam by force whenever and wherever this deems possible?
    @Rafidi is trying to spread peace and tolerance around and all over the forum
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    How can that video be relevant to this thread or a response to my post? It can be so in one way only; does 'hazihi al-ard lel-jamii' conform to Muhamad and the Quran? Does it conform to the precept of (the call of) spreading and maintaining Islam by force whenever and wherever this deems possible?
    I have responded to your points. Dont take fighting into the sacred months. Cease fire. But if you are attacked in the sacred months, then defend yourself in the sacred months. Very simple to understand. What you need is not a reply. It is psychotherapy. I cant keep to also be repeating myself because you have high fever in the brain.

    And you conveniently overlooked Jesus violating the Sabbath on several occasions.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    How are western backed/engineered Takfiri terrorist groups related to Islam? Except if the KKK are to be considered the purest of Christians or the White supremacists to be considered a Christianity problem.
    The takfiris are behaving the way Muhammad did.

    The behaviours of the kkk and white supremacists is opposite to the behaviour of Jesus.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    The takfiris are behaving the way Muhammad did.

    The behaviours of the kkk and white supremacists is opposite to the behaviour of Jesus.
    The KKK were also behaving the way Jesus behaved.

    The behaviours of Takfiris are different to the behaviours of Muhammad who had neighbors from other faiths and asked his followers to act with others justly and kindly if they pose no threat.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The KKK were also behaving the way Jesus behaved.

    The behaviours of Takfiris are different to the behaviours of Muhammad who had neighbors from other faiths and asked his followers to act with others justly and kindly if they pose no threat.
    Yeah ok.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    The NT portrays Jesus as a zealot. He was always lashing out against his opponents and call the Jews, his own people, different insulting names like "adulterous generation" and "snakes" and "sons of the devil". He said he came as a sword and to spread division and even asked his disciples to buy swords, which proved useless. He used a whip to beat people and overturn tables. And all these were done by a man with 12 followers minus one and about whom the NT says "his own people rejected him". Imagine if he could have raised a standing army.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The NT portrays Jesus as a zealot. He was always lashing out against his opponents and call the Jews, his own people, different insulting names like "adulterous generation" and "snakes" and "sons of the devil". He said he came as a sword and to spread division and even asked his disciples to buy swords, which proved useless. He used a whip to beat people and overturn tables. And all these were done by a man with 12 followers minus one and about whom the NT says "his own people rejected him". Imagine if he could have raised a standing army.
    Yeah ok.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Well, I am not asking for approval. I'm only showing you what she has to say. And it sounds legit.
    The only people who care about what she has to say on the topic are those looking for confirmation bias.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    The only people who care about what she has to say on the topic are those looking for confirmation bias.
    But that isnt the case here, habibti. I know it hurts. But it was an interesting post I thought I should share with you.
     
    Top