[Religion] being friends with the kuffar (non-believer)

mormans.........i win

 

Goodness. Quit your damn plagiarism. All you do is copy paste from Islamophobe websites , do you ever add anything meaningful to a discussion that isn't directly from one of your extremist websites.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/009-friends-with-christians-jews.htm

Spoiler

troll

 

This is interesting. Can anyone confirm this?

 

I am very far from expert in these matters but I have heard that the Qu'ran isn't meant to be translated so that the Qu'ran of different sects is the same Qu'ran that Mohammed wrote and not reinterpretations.

 

Are you drunk again?

No plagiarism involved, stated where I gathered information & gave link...

And at the end I give the Link before summarising and closing...

Problem?

I know the truth hurts, but maybe you should actually READ the post before launching your personal attack, you've just been made to look the FOOL.

BTW: the verses from the Quran were copy and pasted from the Quran.

No plagiarism there either.

 

BTW: What makes this an 'Islampphobe' website? Is there any fear mongering in the post, or is it the truth?

Is posting Islamic scripture, with commentary, considered Islamophobic now?

Could you show me where the post is distorting the Quran or Hadith, or is it 100% accurate?

Time to put up or shut up.

 

For adeelsiddiqui and his brethren, it's easy: Anything they cannot refute has to be from an "Islamophobe" source, so they don't need to actually try and THINK about it.

If you don't know how to deal with the truth - just attack the messenger and the source.

#transparency #honesty #protocol #Islamophobiatroopers

 

I don't agree with him...but you are an Islamophobe...it would be pretty pointless to argue that.

 

TrueBeaner, you strike me as someone who likes to participate in discussions, but rarely adds any deeper thought of his own.

If labeling someone who criticizes certain tendencies of an aggressive ideology makes it easier for you to think you understand life, then so be it.

 

Better to let others confirm, but I assure you this is one of the primary reasons Muslims remain Muslim. It's considered a prophesized miracle by Muslims because there is reference to it in the verses.

There are two cosmetic differences between the oldest and newest Quran:

1) Tashkeel: This is like the accents/symbols on letters in European languages to indicate the pronounciation. From studying French I know they exist in French. I've seen that in Dutch they exist on a's as well.

2) Punctuation. There was no punctuation initially, just spaces where verses end and begin.

But tashkeel and punctuation in all Qurans of all sects are the same, and their absence in the Qurans are accepted historically by all sects.

Then there is Hadith and Tafsir (i.e. "scholarly" interpretation). The difference in sources for the two biggest sects of information can be very generally broken down as:

- Sunnis: accept the stories and interpretations told by Muhammad's companions and their subsequent followers. It's a common error to think that these are close companions. In reality, companions are known as Sahabah and it's a far wider group than "close" companions. They believe that there is a special quality bestowed to the companions which makes their opinion more believable.

- Shiites: accept the stories and interpretations told by Muhammad's immediate family and their subsequent followers and descendants. They believe there is a genetic superiority to being related to the Prophet.

This split stems from the death of the Prophet where different groups of Muslims made different claims as to how the Prophet dictated succession in leading the Ummah (an ummah is a group of people, not a country). Shiites believe authority should rest with the family while sunnis believe the successor should be appointed from the close companions. At this point the Quran was memorized by hoards of people so there was no disputing it really. What happened next is that each group pleddged allegiance to a different group of "scholars" i.e. people who inerpret the Quran and recount Hadith.

These stories I estimate are roughly 90% identical, 5% similar and 5% different. Many of the sources often overlap and there are sources which each side consider illegitimate. There are also other sects.

 

How ironic. Says the guy who treats this like a highschool circle jerk worrying about how many people he has on his side in an insecure sort of way.

What I said still stands, and most would agree.

 

Nobody cares.

 

Really interesting read. Any idea as to what makes up the 5% difference betweens Sunnis and Shiites?

 

Apparently you do.

 

I like how adeelsiddiqui launched his personal attack, but neither he or the usual suspects wish to discuss the content of my post, or questions posed.

1st Round Knock out...again.

 

You don't have to agree with me or even like me, for that matter, but you can't ignore the facts that were presented in my post.

I quoted directly from the Quran, in Arabic and English, using the worlds most respected scholarly translations:
Sahih International
Muhsin Khan
Pickthall
Yusuf Ali
Shakir
&
Dr. Ghali

Can't argue against the truth, that is why you don't see any of the usual suspects even attempt to argue against my post...they just launch their personal attack and point their fingers and shout 'Islamophobe!!!', or call me a plagiarist when I clearly stated where I gathered the second lot of information from and provided a link.

Then they call me a 'Troll' in the hopes that I would just disappear, and not continue to provide the readers on this board with the truth.

Still waiting for a response to post #66

Also could you show me where I attacked Islam in my post or where I was sensationalising or 'Fear mongering' against Islam?

I said it was time to Put up or Shut up...I guess they chose to shut up.

 

I have a general idea, but in all honesty for the Shiite side of things I'm not the best person to ask since I was taught/raised with Sunni ideology so I'm more familiar with it. Also, do not ask a conservative Sunni about Shiites, and do not ask a conservative Shiite about Sunnis - you will typically hear conspiracy theories, pre-historic gossip and back-handed insults that don't fairly represent either side. For example, growing up I would constantly hear that the Shiite ideology was invented by an undercover Jew seeking to create divisions withing Islam >> this is of course ridiculous, but so common that many young people believe it and even older people who don't do any research themselves (having outsourced any explanation of anything Islamic to an Islamic "scholar" of some sort).

On the 5% difference, some prominent things I can think of:

- Stories about what the Prophet said when he died, summarized here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_Muhammad .

- Stories about certain people. So this is essentially a game of Sunni/Companions vs Shiite/Descendants. Therefore each side considers some members (even prominent members) of the other side as liars, unfit for interpretation, immoral, illegitimate, etc. These stem from the same initial dispute - whereas one of these groups believe that Imam Ali (cousin/son-in-law of the Prophet and first of the Twelve Descendant Imams) should have been the first Caliph, the other group believed that Abu Bakr (Muhammad's best friend and companion) was rightly appointed as Caliph. In a way, the Shiites are the rebels against the method by which the Caliph was selected. Essentially, a group of friends went into a room with a prominent group of Muslims and selected Abu Bakr from among themselves - as democratic as it gets for its time, but hardly democratic by today's standards. On the other hand, Imam Ali was IIRC still a teenager when the Prophet passed away and didn't hold much sway with the seniors - although he had already been in battle and was very well-entrenched in Islamic teachings directly from the Prophet.

You can see how this has developed into our world today. The Supreme Leader of Iran (90% Shiite), by law, has to be a descendant of this line. These descendants are still considered to be special interpretors of past and future events. Tribalism is rare.

On the other hand, the Sunni Kingdoms do rely on tribal politics - so many of the leaders came about through wars with tribes and ultimately ruled by an allied coalition of tribes which selects one tribe to lead them. The dissapearance of all tribes other than the leading tribe in today's Middle East is a fascinating story which I wish I could say more about.

- Since these texts (Hadith and Tafsir) includes stories relayed or principles interpreted by people who were sometimes born centuries after the Prophet, the difference also captures a lot of small insignificant things like whether condoms are permitted, rules of "temporary marriage", business etiquette, food hygiene, Pilgrimmage Hymns, etc. Of course, each group uses these little insignificant things to rally the troops against each other.

Within each of the two main sects, there are further "schools of thought" and other types of groupings. From what I understand, all other sects (such as Ismaili, Ahmadiyya and Sufism) developed as a result of breaking off from one of the two main sects for various reasons. There are hundreds of other sects. Sunnis form about 75% of Muslims, while Shiites are about 10-15%. Here is background if interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches

I apologize if I've offended or misrepresented someone. I don't support any sect more than another, so you can chalk it up to misunderstanding rather than politics.

 

Also, just for public info, there is no such thing as

Sahih International
Muhsin Khan
Pickthall
Yusuf Ali
Shakir
&
Dr. Ghali

.. for Arabic Quran. There is a reason why all Arabic Qurans are identical while all tranalsations are different - doesn't take a genius to understand this.

 

Thanks for being so open about this. It's a good example of the vilification of Jews in Muslim ideology. Even children are indoctrinated that Jews are the root of all evil.

Watching your posts over the years, it is clear that you are relatively intelligent (relative to posters like adeelsiddiqui or Hydhypedplaya), so I think your brain ("this is ridiculous") struggles with what you have been taught/indoctrinated with. It seems like one thing almost all Muslim posters here have in common is that they hate Israel. Now, of course, you will say that this is not the case and that your disdain for Israel is only because of what they supposedly do to the poor Palestinians.

I would claim that consciously or subconsciously, your anti-Israel stance goes back to Islamic indoctrination of Jews being evil when you were a child (and growing up, and until today - I have read even English-speaking newspapers in the Gulf region and anti-semitism and blatant anti-Israel propaganda runs rampant there).

So if Sunnis and Shiites are willing to kill each other over an alleged 5 % difference, what does this say about their willingness to kill Jews and other "infidels"?