Post from "fall of Ottoman thread"

[glyn]

(I am consdering every non-muslims as an enemy because Allah told us that no non-muslim can be a friend of muslim).

If this is a widely held view then all the world can expect trouble and difficulties from Pakistan and its friends?

 

[blain2]

Do you come under the label of "moderate Moslem"?

If so, then I am afraid that is not what we are told about "moderate" Moslems.

A very interesting comment.

Since there are non-Muslims on this thread let me clarify the verse in the Quran. This specific verse is specifically there to tell Muslims to not take on Non-Muslims as their "guardians" or "protectors". The context of the verse was with regards to formation of alliances to protect the Muslims from the other tribes in arabia (which included Christian, Pagan and Jewish ones). This verse does not apply to individual friendships and it does not mean that Muslims cannot befriend non-Muslims.

Had this been the case where Muslims were told to be introverts, in this day and age Islam would not be the fastest growing religion in the world. Obviously us Muslims are making friends with non-Muslims and in the process earning their trust to the point where they become one of us or if not then we ramain good friends with a better understanding about each other.

There are certain problems in the way the Quranic arabic has been translated into english which leads people to think that what is being said is to not take on non-Muslims as "friends".

You can read the following if you'd like to for more details:

Umair, read this:
http://answering-christianity.com/friends.htm

 

[blain2]

I don't require any explanation from anyone or any book.

Salim I could care less what you require and what you don't. There are others on the thread who could take advantage of what I have posted....I have already figured that you think yourself too smart for anyone else to explain or prove anything to you.

As a human being, I can only say it is shocking and it makes me sad that any religion could advocate such a feeling!

This is the reason I posted what I posted...this is not what my religion ISLAM advocates....yet I am not too bothered if you cannot understand it....if after living with millions of Muslims in India has not convinced you otherwise, there is very little that I or anyone else on this forum can do to change your mind...thus my earlier explanatory post is for any or all others besides you.

 

[blain2]

You get the feeling I am smart. Good for you. It shows your are getting smarter by the day. Well done!

Oooh some more sarcasm...just love it...it definetly lends to the topic on hand...lets have some more of "Sarcastic Salim, the hilarious IA comic"....

Good that you are explaining to the other members who are mostly Moslems. They require your teaching. Preferably a Mullah should give the interpretation, but I am not aware if you are one or not and if you are, my apolgies for transcending into your realm!

I guess you already probed Glyn about his religion and he and other non-Muslims who are on this thread (and others who may come on in the future) have appointed you to speak for all of them.

Therefore, do stop assuming that you or anyone is the representative of Indian Moslems.

I am more of a representative of Indian Muslims than you can ever claim to be. One half of my family is from Hyderabad Daccan and Kanpur...so mian Salim...don't go on assuming too many things here....there are plenty here who understand your psyche and see right through the motivated trash that you post here.

 

[glyn]

I guess you already probed Glyn about his religion and he and other non-Muslims who are on this thread (and others who may come on in the future) have appointed you to speak for all of them.

Not so, young Sir! I laid my cards on the table for all to see shortly after joining this forum.
I can not subscribe to any religion. I have not appointed Salim to act as my spokesman, nor do I imagine anyone else has either. I do enjoy reading his posts but I also enjoy reading the posts from other members. It was I who first queried the remark about Muslims not having non-muslims for friends. I honestly did not join the forum to indulge in sniping at the other members, but to inform myself how Pakistanis view their military. I also hoped to find other retired pilots and exchange opinions about the various merits and demerits of their previous mounts. Sublime happiness would be finding someone to exchange Pilots Notes or Flight Manuals with. I have no ulterior motives. In conclusion I send you my regards as I enjoy the cut and thrust of reasoned
argument.

Quote fixed.

 

[blain2]

I guess you already probed Glyn about his religion and he and other non-Muslims who are on this thread (and others who may come on in the future) have appointed you to speak for all of them.


Not so, young Sir! I laid my cards on the table for all to see shortly after joining this forum.
I can not subscribe to any religion. I have not appointed Salim to act as my spokesman, nor do I imagine anyone else has either. I do enjoy reading his posts but I also enjoy reading the posts from other members. It was I who first queried the remark about Muslims not having non-muslims for friends. I honestly did not join the forum to indulge in sniping at the other members, but to inform myself how Pakistanis view their military. I also hoped to find other retired pilots and exchange opinions about the various merits and demerits of their previous mounts. Sublime happiness would be finding someone to exchange Pilots Notes or Flight Manuals with. I have no ulterior motives. In conclusion I send you my regards as I enjoy the cut and thrust of reasoned argument.

Glyn,

I am aware of your background and I appreciate the fact that you did not take offense to my posting an appropriate background to Umair's post. I too read the entire thread and felt that my understanding about a certain Quranic verse was not the same as Umair's.

The fact that there may be many others who are non-Muslims, or atheist or whatever else and may come on to these boards, I felt it my duty to lay the other point of view on the line just so people do not take what Umair wrote as is.

 

[A.Rahman]

(I am consdering every non-muslims as an enemy because Allah told us that no non-muslim can be a friend of muslim).

If this is a widely held view then all the world can expect trouble and difficulties from Pakistan and its friends?

Here is the explanation of 5:51 plus translation:

5:51 O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your allies: they are but allies of one anotherAsad [72] and whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them; behold, God does not guide such evildoers.Asad [73]



Note 72 (Quran Ref: 5:51 )According to most of the commentators (e.g., Tabari), this means that each of these two communities extends genuine friendship only to its own adherents-i.e., the Jews to the Jews, and ,the Christians to the Christians-and cannot, therefore, be expected to be really friendly towards the followers of the Qur'an. See also 8:73, and the corresponding note.(Quran Ref: 5:51 )



Note 73 (Quran Ref: 5:51 )"the evildoing folk": i.e., those who deliberately sin in this respect. As regards the meaning of the "alliance" referred to here, see 3:28, and more particularly 4:139 and the corresponding note, which explains the reference to a believer's loss of his moral identity if he imitates the way of life of, or-in Qur'anic terminology-"allies himself" with, non-Muslims. However, as has been made abundantly clear in 60:7-9 (and implied in verse 57 of this surah), this prohibition of a "moral alliance" with non-Muslims does not constitute an injunction against normal, friendly relations with such of them as are well-disposed towards Muslims. It should be borne in mind that the term wali has several shades of meaning: "ally", "friend", "helper", "protector", etc. The choice of the particular term - and sometimes a -combination of two termms-is always dependent on the context.(Quran Ref: 5:51 )

 

[A.Rahman]

Hope this helps you guys ( blain2 & salim)

 

[blain2]

Hope this helps you guys ( blain2 & salim)

I have no problem with what you have posted. Its essentially the same thing as I posted in the url in my earlier post.

Thanks though for posting another link.

 

[Sid]

It is quite 'amusing' to see how you react to posts by others. You reply to posts only when you can throw in a flame bait. And when your post has been cut down to size by someone, you tend to be all like 'I dont need explanations' and 'I wont participate in this discussion anymore'; hmm, I do hope all Indian military personnel don't boast such an attitude.

 

[Thunder]

Salim,

umairperacha is no scholar whom words you can take for granted, though the sites given above clearly tell one of islam. If you want to clear up what you thought then i sugeest you visit those sites, but if you want to be a ingorent fool then go ahead, we don't care. Stop spamming and if a mod could close this thread. Salim's question can very well be answered by the sites given so i don't see a need for this thread to stay open

 

[Sid]

Friend Sid,

My post has not been cut down to size under any circumstances.

The factious statement can be replied with ease, if only the Sword of Damocles does not hang i.e. Ban - since that is a weapon that you possess and I don't. Quite unequal actually.

Next, as I have said, I shall not discuss religion on this Sub Forum Islam and Islamic History.

Return to the old thread and without the threat of the Ban and let us discuss it out.

First of all, people don't get banned around here just because a Mod feels like banning the person. Secondly, if you debate and discuss within the RULES of this forum, you do not have to be worried about a Ban unless of course you are implying that you cannot debate and discuss keeping Rules in mind? In any case, violation of rules brings two warnings after which a temporary ban is enforced - meaning, a permanent Ban is not the first option that is considered here.

It appears that you are a trifle weird (note I am not using the word Coward) where in even in discussing religion you bring in the Indian Army. What is the connection I have not been able to fathom except that it does speak volumes for your mentality as also indicating the weakness of your logic and argument wherein you resort to low and irrelevant attacks.

Be a man and keep to facts and discuss; that is, if your education level is within the prescribed tolerance levels that permit an educated discussion.

You will note that I am do not speak of anyone of having only madrassa education which I could use. I don't require to use it (even if someone is a mere madrassa man) since I can debate an issue on fact and based on my education.

And in your book, all that is quoted above doesn't amount to a personal attack? Hmm, I'll make a note of that.

A friendly piece of advice: When you want to get involved in political and religious themes, you should set the soldier mentality aside as it clearly doesn't work that way.

You will also notice that whenever something is written, the usual refrain, "it has been quoted out of context and in fact the whole Quaran has to be read to understand it!". Everything anyone says is always "out of context".

It is the same thing as the statement "terrorists are undertaking unIslamic acts". Heavens, if they are, then issue a fatwa. But no, that is never done. Living in denial!

Yes, if you read the Qur'an, you will see that almost all passages are linked in one way or the other to preceeding passages. Taking one passage out of the book, translating it and presenting its literal meaning as basis for one's arguement to paint Islam negatively only speaks volumes of that person's intellect since it is common knowledge that Qur'anic verses have two types of meanings, the literal (which you get by translating word for word) and secondly, that which is derived by taking a look at preceeding verses and as they say, reading between the lines. Therefore, you cannot deduce the meaning of a verse simply by going the literal way.

Coming to Fatwas, terrorists ARE undertaking unIslamic acts and many Fatwas have been issued and keep getting issued from time to time but as far as I've read, the nature of Fatwas is non-binding. Terrorists simply do not pay any heed to those Fatwas, instead they counter them by asking their extremist Imams to issue their Fatwas legalising what they do.

What you see nowadays, is a struggle of a majority of Muslims who had been silent up til now against the extremist minority lot. But we are atleast making the attempt. I, however, do not see majority Hindus excommunicating (I do not know Hinduism's version of it) groups like Shiv Sena, RSS and what not who, if given the chance would turn the world in to a Hindu empire tomorrow! Isn't that living in denial?

 

[KashifAsrar]

It is quite 'amusing' to see how you react to posts by others. You reply to posts only when you can throw in a flame bait. And when your post has been cut down to size by someone, you tend to be all like 'I dont need explanations' and 'I wont participate in this discussion anymore'; hmm, I do hope all Indian military personnel don't boast such an attitude.

You are right !! He starts the discussion about ISLAM and its concepts like an SCHOLAR but when confronted with TRUTH, shy away and behave he is a non beliver in religion altogether !!

SALIM if you do not belive in religion then why to indulge in it !! It is already useless theology, according to you !! Why you waste your time!!
By the way if you are DEEPELY interested in ISLAM's (mis) TEACHINGS then you should also have a close understanding of what other religions says on the same matter !! One more point, why you did not discard your identity, as it is also portraying you a very (Anti) religious person !!
You do not adhere to religion but at the same time looks very fascinated to oppose it (Or should I say you oppose ISLAM only ) !!
YOU ARE CONFUSED !!
Kashif

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

First of all, people don't get banned around here just because a Mod feels like banning the person. Secondly, if you debate and discuss within the RULES of this forum, you do not have to be worried about a Ban unless of course you are implying that you cannot debate and discuss keeping Rules in mind? In any case, violation of rules brings two warnings after which a temporary ban is enforced - meaning, a permanent Ban is not the first option that is considered here. Islam & Islamic History

It says on the Forums page, "Discuss Islam and Islamic History. Only mature posts will be allowed. All others will be deleted. DONOT argue!"

Either you don't read what you write or what is written is only for convenience to be used when one wants.

Likewise, you came in all hot headed about my reminding Neo about links. Neo usually forgets and I have reminded him always. He maybe a Super Mod, but my equation with him is totally different.

Very rightly, the Webmaster insists on links.

Remember my being banned on such a ridiculous reason wherein the Moderator conveniently made the foreign office spokesman's statement as the Foreign Policy of Pakistan and so the ban viola!? No discussion, No warning. So, please spare me the pious platitudes.

And anyway, why can't foreign policies be discussed? It is discussed in all forums. Where is it in the rules of this forum that foreign policy or discussion on statements made by the Pakistani spokesman would be taken as heresy! In short, a ban order is at the whims and fancies of the Mods, though I think the same has been wisely revised by the Webmaster.

What an illogical reason for a ban. Pakistani go hammer and tongs at Musharraf and nothing happens to them and here was the Mod who took umbrage at the Pak FO being discussed for a wrong statement given by her! The rationale behind the is so obvious. Asim summed it up neatly - because you are Ray so it is "misdemeanour" is by default!

And in your book, all that is quoted above doesn't amount to a personal attack? Hmm, I'll make a note of that.

A friendly piece of advice: When you want to get involved in political and religious themes, you should set the soldier mentality aside as it clearly doesn't work that way.

My good friend, as usual you think you are in the Armoured Corps. You "button up" and fail to see the scenario 360 degrees.

The so called personal attack was in reply to your personal attack thus:

It is quite 'amusing' to see how you react to posts by others. You reply to posts only when you can throw in a flame bait. And when your post has been cut down to size by someone, you tend to be all like 'I dont need explanations' and 'I wont participate in this discussion anymore'; hmm, I do hope all Indian military personnel don't boast such an attitude.

I was merely replying using your technique.

The personal attack was your doing and I followed suit so that you realise the pinch when you wear the shoe.

Yes, if you read the Qur'an, you will see that almost all passages are linked in one way or the other to preceeding passages. Taking one passage out of the book, translating it and presenting its literal meaning as basis for one's arguement to paint Islam negatively only speaks volumes of that person's intellect since it is common knowledge that Qur'anic verses have two types of meanings, the literal (which you get by translating word for word) and secondly, that which is derived by taking a look at preceeding verses and as they say, reading between the lines. Therefore, you cannot deduce the meaning of a verse simply by going the literal way.

Very convenient.

Applicable for all religions and all books.

Likewise, one should then not quote a single sentence when justifying what they are saying. Quite logical I presume or is that only applicable for me? See, you talk in circles. Am I confused or are you?

Coming to Fatwas, terrorists ARE undertaking unIslamic acts and many Fatwas have been issued and keep getting issued from time to time but as far as I've read, the nature of Fatwas is non-binding. Terrorists simply do not pay any heed to those Fatwas, instead they counter them by asking their extremist Imams to issue their Fatwas legalising what they do.

Do show where Fatwas against terrorists have been given. That would be good.

Why should extremist Imam's give fatwas legalising terrorism. Aren' they people who believe in Islam and by your statement shouldn't they also not give comments reading the Koran "out of context" and instead read the Quaran in full as you want me to understand? Is it for non Moslems to sift the grain from the chaff of Imams?

Or is that fiat by you applicable to me alone to read the Quaranic statements in the whole context of the Quaran and not out of context?

What you see nowadays, is a struggle of a majority of Muslims who had been silent up til now against the extremist minority lot. But we are atleast making the attempt. I, however, do not see majority Hindus excommunicating (I do not know Hinduism's version of it) groups like Shiv Sena, RSS and what not who, if given the chance would turn the world in to a Hindu empire tomorrow! Isn't that living in denial?

I am not aware of Hinduism. I wonder if they have such an instrument. And who cares about fools like the Shiv Sena and the RSS. They have been sent to the trash can of history this election and there they shall reside for a long time to come. They are the most idiotic of dolts.

Excommunication was there in Christianity, but that has been junked long back (Ijtihad, if you wish) as one of the most stupid things that could be done. It was a convenient stick to ensure that there was no revolt against the Pope.

In so far as my not wanting to discuss in the Islamic forum, ask Rehman. I said so in reply to one of his posts.

Why not take this discussion into the thread where it was being discussed. As a matter of choice, I don't want to discuss in this forum since I am afraid one thing will lead to another and it won't be palatable.

 

[Sid]

Sid,

Or being warned by you for spelling errors.

Jana make its a fashion statement with spelling errors.

Where are you then, Mr Fairplay and Justice?

As they say, Doctor Heal thy self.

Have you noticed how non Moslems are scared off the board?

Does it happen elsewhere?

There is a difference between a warning and a cautioning remark. Jana has been cautioned time and again for the mistakes she makes as was your friend, who I believe left the forum because he was so sensitive. And save your sarcasms for someone else since they hardly ever work to provoke me.

If I am appearing obtuse, it is because of the pious platitudes and homilies that you are putting forward to show how fair and just you are!

Now, go into a huddle to prove me wrong or use the magic want and make me vanish.

I came here on the invitation of Neo. I found the board a refreshing change, though with a few overzealous Moderators but now you are not even to debate logically.

Neo and the Webmaster is the saving grace, but then they too have their compulsions.

As I said, save the sarcasms. They're not helping your case.

Why not take this discussion into the thread where it was being discussed. As a matter of choice, I don't want to discuss in this forum since I am afraid one thing will lead to another and it won't be palatable.

That is for the Webmaster to decide. You can PM him on the issue.