[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by skhan: *
I think you described one boat, not two.
[/QUOTE]
:D :D
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthecross: *
1. Are you inferring that under the current situation Muslims should remit retaliation by way of charity even when they are not allowed to offer their prayers in Musjid-ul-Aqsa (Islams first Qibla). Isnt it true that Quran clearly says that when the infidels stop muslims to pray in their holy sights they(Muslims) should declare a war against the infidels? (Please any one who knows the correct ayat , post it here)
[/quote]
If that what makes sense in certain situations then sure why not… Look at Islamic history, in early days of Islam when Sahabah and other Muslims were tortured and killed and yet the prophet (PBUH) told other Muslims who were in position to retaliate not to do so … not because he didn’t care simply because it did not make sense to do so due to the limited resources and the situation that they were in… use your brains and guidelines revealed by Allah (SWT) and his messenger to figure out how to address the situation instead of jumping into a situation with your sleeves rolled up and chanting eye for an eye…
I can tell you drive your car by all means through the worst snow storm and you can attempt to start the car as many times as you want and push the gas paddle as many times as you want you are not going any where until you have gas in your gas tank.
[quote]
2. The Ummah concept is very much there , I would suggest You do some reading.
[/quote]
Thank you for your suggestions, may be one day I will give that a try too but by the grace of God I know what Ummah is… but your definition and mine differs…. Ummah does not mean that you have to support who ever falls in that category (per some people’s perceptions here) without looking at their actions and motives… don’t forget there are many ahadith and verses in Quran that state the criteria that renders a person/group “Kharij (out)” from this Ummah… we have to realize that there are groups and people out there who don’t understand the concept and some understanding the concept use for their advantage like Saddam tried using it when he was losing power.
[quote]
3. Neither have I accused anyone nor do I have a boat. I have stated mere facts its you who should choose.
[/QUOTE]
Let me re-iterate…. I refuse to board any of your boats or Irem’s boat that is anti-Bush or Bush’s boat for that mater… if none of the boats make any sense I will either make my own or will swim in the water without the boat and struggle to reach the other side of the river with Allah (SWT)’s help.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by skhan: *
I think you described one boat, not two.
[/QUOTE]
Apparently not for those who say as muslims we are together, we are one ummah, one body, whether we like it or not, we are in the same boat.
ditto:k:
you guys still stuck at boats? such peasants
what about luxury yatchs, cruise ships? heck even a speedboat or a pontoon...
why argue over which dinghy to choose :)
Frdz: Was that a poor attempt to bring the thread up or were you trying to be funny.:)
Faisal : With your “first opinion” and “second opinion” theory all you have done is split the boat into two once again . My original post says that according to Islam (what I know of it) the second opinion does not exist either that or I want to be convinced that the second opinion is the correct one and my interpretation of Islam is Flawed.
Chachoo & Skhan were the only ones who were trying to "convince" me(As I had requested in my orignal post) and others like Irem(who still seems to be confused) that the design of my boat is unsound.Chachoo tends to start at the right point but then shoots off into tangents where as Skhan is precise but lacks material(examples).
[quote]
if the Muslims in Palestine are hindered from offering prayers in Masjid ul aqsa they can fight with what ever they have got :- that means they can suicide bomb the Israeli army and tanks but not the civilians, so there is no concept of “collateral Damage” in Islam. Good!
[/quote]
Now we have a consensus on the point that if Islam is in jeopardy Muslims are allowed to defend their faith with whatever means possible even suicide bombings BUT restrict it ONLY to military personal and infrastructures. If that cannot be achieved then they should “REASON” with the enemy till the time they are in a position to retaliate and defend their religion.
As all of you could not come up with examples I talked to a few Muslims who did elaborate on this issue.
When the prophet was exiled from Makkah , The Prophet knew he was outnumbered against the large army of Kaffirs. in that case he formed a Pact with the kaffirs. The pact allowed the Muslims to stay in Madina and practice their religion for 10 years and in return the Muslims would not attack the caravans heading to makkah and The Muslims would never enter Makkah (for the same tenure) to perform the holy pilgrimage of HAJ.
This clearly shows that the prophet Reasoned. For the prophet of Islam not to go to Kabah for 10 years, Is, I think the biggest sacrifice imaginable, all because under the present circumstances the prophet and his followers lacked power and resources.
Am I right?
The boat is disappearing fast<<
BUT there are a few loose ends for e.g Qurans instructions about killing of infidels under certain circumstance . As I am not well versed with the Quran I will have to do a little research , If someone else on this board is; please be my guest.
PS: I would request the muslims/non-Muslims on this board to please show some restraint and patience until we reach a firm conclusion before calling people names like “Fundo”, “extremist” and “may your boat sink along with you”. This thread will clear the concepts of allot of Muslims and non Muslims alike who are misguided about Islam including me.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthecross: *
Frdz: Was that a poor attempt to bring the thread up or were you trying to be funny.:).
[/QUOTE]
dude there is no way I would want to bring this thread up. and no I was not trying to be funny, just sarcastic :)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthecross: *
This clearly shows that the prophet Reasoned. For the prophet of Islam not to go to Kabah for 10 years, Is, I think the biggest sacrifice imaginable, all because under the present circumstances the prophet and his followers lacked power and resources.
Am I right?
BUT there are a few loose ends for e.g Qurans instructions about killing of infidels under certain circumstance . As I am not well versed with the Quran I will have to do a little research , If someone else on this board is; please be my guest.
[/QUOTE]
Thank God, a voice of reason in the midst of insanity.
Yes you are absolutely right. As for the loose ends, the verses you are referring to "come in to play" when there is no other possible peaceful resolution, as a last resort. The Prophet (pbuh) reasoned, true, however, he did not compromise on any fundamental Muslim practise. He was going for a special pilgrimmage, which is mandatory as ONCE a LIFETIME. There is a big difference in not going for pilgrimmage for 10 years and in having your family and homes taken away from you. Therefore, "infidels" are to be killed (in self defense) in situations of imminent danger where no compromise is possible. Kind of like when a bulldozer destroys your home and family. Like when you are persecuted just because of your faith.
Even then, I strongly doubt the Prophet would have endorsed any sort of killing of any innocent civilians.
Skhan if you can take out the word “doubt” from the above statement we will be able to reach to solid conclusion.
“Civilians are not to be harmed under any circumstances”
& then I can revert to my other nicks 
and wander into other forums, where I can flaunt my animated personality 
.seriousness is just killing me.
On a serious note let me work on this one…
this thread has been on my mind since i read it yesterday :p
i actually discussed the matter with my father and also with one of my best friends.
here's some points to think about that we discussed. not my opinion necessarily, but just wanted to throw em into the debate:
ppl who do suicide bombings, a lot of them come from economically deprived backgrounds. what's happenning in the middle east is not about islam. its about politics, money and power.
are all those ppl who do suicide bombings or fight for the cause of islam, strict adherents of namaz, roza, zakat and all other pillars of Islam? are they all good Muslims?re: unity of ummah: PLO, egypt used to support india against pakistan on the kashmir cause. in london, bogra, ex paki pm, once said abt arabs: zero plus zero is zero, when arabs and europe were fighting abt the suez canal. in the response the egyptian embassy packed up and left from isloo and started supporting india.
only recently have they become somewhat silent, still not supporting pak openly abt kashmir.in the modern warfare methods of today, as opposed to methods of warfare during our Prophet (saw)'s time, it is not possible to conduct warfare without "collateral damage". when the enemy has tanks, airplanes, missiles, and u dont even have proper ammunition, and the enemy is oppressive to the extent where they come and kill ur innocent family members, take away ur homes, do air raids over your neighborhoods...
then, what options do u have?
ur existence is pretty much futile and helpless, ur pushed against the wall. and u just try to inflict damage to the enemy in any way possible.
Madhanee
Irem, sure, a terrorist can be of any religion or race, but at present day in time, it is the Islami fanatical terrorists that threaten our lives more than any other terrorists. (today in jakarta, a few months ago in Bali, and everyday in Afghanistan, and in Iraq, and you name it) When you say a Muslim is just a Muslim, are you saying that Osama is plain Muslim (are you comparing him with Prophet Mohammad)?? What about Yazid? Are you saying that Muslims can’t be terrorists? Do you remember what they did to Danny Pearl? They were ‘Muslims”. <<<<<
i'm saying that anybody who uses the name of islam for wrong purposes is still a criminal and cannot be absolved jus b/c they use the name of islam. and you gave the best example, yazid, he was also fighting for the so called unity of the muslim ummah. just b/c a criminal is muslim doesn't mean we start calling him an "islamic fanatic". associating the word "islam" with him is not right imho. just call him a simple terrorist, why islami fanatic or terrorist? why malign Islam?
that said though, not all ppl who've waged war in the name of islam are terrorists. there are people who have done sincere jihad against oppression.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthecross: *
Now we have a consensus on the point that if Islam is in jeopardy Muslims are allowed to defend their faith with whatever means possible even suicide bombings BUT restrict it ONLY to military personal and infrastructures. If that cannot be achieved then they should “REASON” with the enemy till the time they are in a position to retaliate and defend their religion.
[/QUOTE]
you're right abt that
the problem though is:
the enemy doesn't honor his words and doesn't stick to the agreements reached. enemy is untrustworthy.
did israel ever honor the pacts she made with palestinian leaders? israel always goes back on her words, and then gives excuses like Muslim terrorism.
it would be a different matter if the enemy was willing to negotiate, reach an agreement and honor it. in this case the enemy is not trustworthy.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by skhan: *
Even then, I strongly doubt the Prophet would have endorsed any sort of killing of any innocent civilians.
[/QUOTE]
Actually skhan, Islam doesn't like wars. If Islam had its way, so to speak, there would be no wars in the world today. Islam is a religon of peace.
Its only when Muslims are provoked to the max that they react.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by irem: *
ur existence is pretty much futile and helpless, ur pushed against the wall. and u just try to inflict damage to the enemy in any way possible.
[/QUOTE]
Irem….First of all the statement is quite vague, secondly If I understand you correctly you are saying all sorts of suicide bombings are acceptable?
when you make a statement like this please substantiate it in the light of the Quran and the Sunnah .
Not By…
Political justifications OR not by judging whether they are good Muslims or not leave that to God .
If you read my posts above you will understand what I am saying….
underthecross,
"ur existence is pretty much futile and helpless, ur pushed against the wall. and u just try to inflict damage to the enemy in any way possible. "
shudve explained in more detail, lets c
existence is futile= many of the youth are parts of families that have lost members lives to oppression, their city is under occupation, their existence is futile because they live in fear and zero safety of life
helpless, pushed against the wall= they have no practical and viable way to improve this situation
try to inflict damage to the enemy in any way possible= suicide bombings of civilians of enemy country
when you make a statement like this please substantiate it in the light of the Quran and the Sunnah .
Not By…
Political justifications OR not by judging whether they are good Muslims or not leave that to God .
If you read my posts above you will understand what I am saying….<<<<
references from Quran and Sunnah: unfortunaly not an expert in that...we don't really have a true parallel in Sunnah abt this.
people have taken different verses from the Quran to justify opposing points of view.
thus i feel that we should have the basic teachings of islam in our minds and tru to look at the situation and try to decide based on empirical principles of justice
whether they are good Muslims or not leave that to God: totally, im not judging
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthecross: *
If I understand you correctly you are saying all sorts of suicide bombings are acceptable?
[/QUOTE]
i'm not making any statements about what i think is correct. i'm torn abt the issue, confused, and i dont know whats right and whats wrong in this situation. i think i have neither the right nor the knowledge to say whats right or wrong in this situation?
in my last post i was jus putting different POV's that i found interesting fwd to be added into the debate.
I thought that the Koran was created a complete book of rules for life? Seems to me that this is a pretty basic issue that it should address. You're copping out big time Irem.
Stu, Quran is a guide from ALLAH to ME and tells ME how to behave in life. And in this situation, I think the RIGHT thing for me to do would be not to make statements without proper knowledge and proof.
Does that Make sense? :)
And I'm not copping out. I never cop out and inshallah will never in the future either. :)
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by underthecross: *
Skhan if you can take out the word “doubt” from the above statement we will be able to reach to solid conclusion.
*“Civilians are not to be harmed under any circumstances”**
[/QUOTE]
Hmm that's a tough one. To remove that word would mean I am speaking for the Prophet (PBUH), which I don't think anyone on this earth is qualified to do. However, we can compromise :). Let's say I am very sure he wouldn't have endorsed any sort of killing of civilians, but NOT 100% certain as I am not in a position to make that statement. But I don't see how that takes away from the argument, the conclusion you have reached is very valid.
PS. Mind you, I am speaking for myself, not the Muslim Ummah. I can't issue a fatwa or anything :)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by irem: *
Its only when Muslims are provoked to the max that they react.
[/QUOTE]
I think you got me wrong Irem, I am saying exactly what you are saying :)
:k:
skhan, i wasn’t opposing what u’d said either 
was just taking ur statement a bit further n cementing your line of argument…