A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Monday, January 12, 2015
The Myth Of A Tiny Minority Of Muslims Are Radicals (By Western Standards, Of Course)
If they don't want Sharia, are they really Muslims?
(HT: Robert Coble).
The world is divided into the House of Islam and the House of War, the Dar al-Islam and the Dar al-harb.
The Dar al-Islam is all those lands in which a Muslim government rules and the Holy Law of Islam prevails. Non-Muslims may live there on Muslim sufferance as second-class Dhimmis.
The outside world, which has not yet been subjugated, is called the "House of War," and strictly speaking a perpetual state of jihad, of holy war, is imposed by Qur'anic law. The law also provides that the jihad might be interrupted by truces as and when appropriate [to further the ultimate goal of Islam]. In fact, the periods of peace and war were not vastly different from those which existed between the Christian states of Europe for most of European history.
The law thus divides unbelievers theologically into those who have a book [people of the Book: Jews and Christians] and profess what Islam recognizes as a divine religion and those who do not; politically into dhimmis, those who have accepted the supremacy of the Muslim state and the primacy of the Muslims, and harbis, the denizens of the Dar al-harb, the House of War, who remain outside the Islamic frontier, and with whom therefore there is in principle, a canonically obligatory perpetual state of war until the whole world is either converted or subjugated.
Any self-designated Muslim who denies this ultimate goal is either (a) applying taqiyya (permissable lying to unbelievers in order to further the goal of global Islamic domination) or kitman (intentional omission of pertinent facts) in order to lull the harbis into a false sense of security before destruction, or (b) is no "true Muslim." There is no other alternatives.
So, Western infidels, which will it be: acquiescence and servitude as a Dhimmi or death?
The word "radical" means following the terminology you are identified as? So if you follow secularism or want secularism, then a secularist would be recognized as a "radical secularist"?
@RC Although the world "dar" can also mean "house", it means "country" or "land".
The classification is due to political nature in the past, however Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr is the more terminology. A land with majority of non-Muslims or ruled by non-Muslims is not necessarily at war with Muslims. And when "Dar al-harb" is used, there are countries that are considered neither a land of Islam nor a land of war.
War is declared in instances such as displays hostility and aggression or refusal to allow people to be informed about Islam.
Nonetheless, these terminologies don't apply in today's political nature.
Please discuss Shiite terminologies with Shiites.
'Abdullah reported Allah's Messenger (PBUH) as saying: It is obligatory for you to tell the truth, for truth leads to virtue and virtue leads to Paradise, and the man who continues to speak the truth and endeavours to tell the truth is eventually recorded as truthful with Allah, and beware of telling of a lie for telling of a lie leads to obscenity and obscenity leads to Hell-Fire, and the person who keeps telling lies and endeavours to tell a lie is recorded as a liar with Allah.-Sahih Muslim, Book 32, Hadith 6309
Another example of kitman from our esteemed Serpent's Denture!
You previously provided the allowable exceptions to the text you just quoted, regarding the circumstances under which it is not only permissible to lie, but REQUIRED to lie - Muslim to Muslim. If you cannot be consistently honest in all circumstances with your own co- religionists, why would you expect others to believe you under any circumstances?+
A Westerner would assume (incorrectly) that the "holy word" quoted above was without exception. Most noticeable is the absence of differentiating between the dialog between two Muslims (of the same sect) and between two Muslims of different sects (Shiites and Sunnis) or most definitely between ANY Muslim and any infidel.
If the primary goal of Islam (total forced domination over all others and subjugation of those others) is at issue, then it is OBLIGATORY to lie.
It is for this reason (the condoning of lying under circumstances that favor the furtherance of the goals of Islam) that Westerners would be well advised to never trust anything that an Islamist says, especially not with regard to being a "religion of peace" along the lines of "Can't we all just get along (UNTIL WE GAIN THE UPPER HAND)?"
3 comments:
Islam:
The world is divided into the House of Islam and the House of War, the Dar al-Islam and the Dar al-harb.
The Dar al-Islam is all those lands in which a Muslim government rules and the Holy Law of Islam prevails. Non-Muslims may live there on Muslim sufferance as second-class Dhimmis.
The outside world, which has not yet been subjugated, is called the "House of War," and strictly speaking a perpetual state of jihad, of holy war, is imposed by Qur'anic law. The law also provides that the jihad might be interrupted by truces as and when appropriate [to further the ultimate goal of Islam]. In fact, the periods of peace and war were not vastly different from those which existed between the Christian states of Europe for most of European history.
The law thus divides unbelievers theologically into those who have a book [people of the Book: Jews and Christians] and profess what Islam recognizes as a divine religion and those who do not; politically into dhimmis, those who have accepted the supremacy of the Muslim state and the primacy of the Muslims, and harbis, the denizens of the Dar al-harb, the House of War, who remain outside the Islamic frontier, and with whom therefore there is in principle, a canonically obligatory perpetual state of war until the whole world is either converted or subjugated.
Any self-designated Muslim who denies this ultimate goal is either (a) applying taqiyya (permissable lying to unbelievers in order to further the goal of global Islamic domination) or kitman (intentional omission of pertinent facts) in order to lull the harbis into a false sense of security before destruction, or (b) is no "true Muslim." There is no other alternatives.
So, Western infidels, which will it be: acquiescence and servitude as a Dhimmi or death?
So according to his methodology, there are way more non-Muslim radicals over Muslim radicals.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/a-fascinating-look-at-the-political-views-of-muslim-americans/242975/
The word "radical" means following the terminology you are identified as? So if you follow secularism or want secularism, then a secularist would be recognized as a "radical secularist"?
@RC
Although the world "dar" can also mean "house", it means "country" or "land".
The classification is due to political nature in the past, however Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr is the more terminology. A land with majority of non-Muslims or ruled by non-Muslims is not necessarily at war with Muslims.
And when "Dar al-harb" is used, there are countries that are considered neither a land of Islam nor a land of war.
War is declared in instances such as displays hostility and aggression or refusal to allow people to be informed about Islam.
Nonetheless, these terminologies don't apply in today's political nature.
Please discuss Shiite terminologies with Shiites.
'Abdullah reported Allah's Messenger (PBUH) as saying:
It is obligatory for you to tell the truth, for truth leads to virtue and virtue leads to Paradise, and the man who continues to speak the truth and endeavours to tell the truth is eventually recorded as truthful with Allah, and beware of telling of a lie for telling of a lie leads to obscenity and obscenity leads to Hell-Fire, and the person who keeps telling lies and endeavours to tell a lie is recorded as a liar with Allah. -Sahih Muslim, Book 32, Hadith 6309
Another example of kitman from our esteemed Serpent's Denture!
You previously provided the allowable exceptions to the text you just quoted, regarding the circumstances under which it is not only permissible to lie, but REQUIRED to lie - Muslim to Muslim. If you cannot be consistently honest in all circumstances with your own co- religionists, why would you expect others to believe you under any circumstances?+
A Westerner would assume (incorrectly) that the "holy word" quoted above was without exception. Most noticeable is the absence of differentiating between the dialog between two Muslims (of the same sect) and between two Muslims of different sects (Shiites and Sunnis) or most definitely between ANY Muslim and any infidel.
If the primary goal of Islam (total forced domination over all others and subjugation of those others) is at issue, then it is OBLIGATORY to lie.
It is for this reason (the condoning of lying under circumstances that favor the furtherance of the goals of Islam) that Westerners would be well advised to never trust anything that an Islamist says, especially not with regard to being a "religion of peace" along the lines of "Can't we all just get along (UNTIL WE GAIN THE UPPER HAND)?"
Post a Comment