Clearing Up Misconceptions about Islam

[PointOfViewGun]

Setekh,

Oh, I think telling one to kill one's neighbours if they don't agree to convert or for even just living their lives as a non-Muslim as is happening all across the world right now should be sufficient. If they don't hate their neighbours why are they killing them. The Koran distinctly as has been shown encourages one to hate and kill.

Nowhere in Quran does it tell encourages you to hate and kill your neighbor if they don't agree to convert and go on living their lives as non-Muslims. Quran only allows killing if its done in self defense. It always tells you to turn to peace if your enemy chooses not to attack. No, conversion is not a requirement. It's just one option. This is not about language skills. It's about making stuff up or not.

[bigdaddy1204]

Setekh,

Oh, I think telling one to kill one's neighbours if they don't agree to convert or for even just living their lives as a non-Muslim as is happening all across the world right now should be sufficient. If they don't hate their neighbours why are they killing them. The Koran distinctly as has been shown encourages one to hate and kill.

You didn't respond to post #109 in this thread, where I replied you directly.

[mishkin]

If they don't hate their neighbours why are they killing them.

I think I have a muslim neighbour, should I call the police?

[Fardin]

Your conclusion is close to the truth, Muslims like every human in the world have different ideas.
I tried to answer every question honestly and based on Sharia law.If you( not you Infidel144 ) have any unanswered questions,you can ask and I give you my word you'll get an honest answer.

[Himster]

I shall also clear up some misconceptions:
-What most of us call the "terrorist scarf" is actually called a hijab and there's nothing scary about it. It's just a normal scarf.
-When Muslims dress up like ninjas it's not so they can do terrorism stuff/fight samurai, it's actually a traditional garment called a niqab.
-"Allahu Akbar" doesn't mean "we're terrorists and we're going to murder you now," it means "God is Great", which is just as silly and scary, but different strokes for different folks. It's only in rare circumstances should you be afraid of this phrase.
-Some Muslims can actually take jokes, they're just hard to find sometimes, but they do exist.
-Not all Muslims are brown, some Muslims are black. The largest Muslim nation is Indonesia, the majority of that nation is usually considered Asian and I saw an Albino man in Egypt. So there's at least one white Muslim.
-Not all Muslims hate Jews. (Hating Israel is not the same as hating Jews)
-Not all Muslims want to murder/torture/punish homosexuals, only most of them do. Which is better than it used to be. Heck, in Europe/America practically the entirety of society wanted the same only a few generations ago and look at how cool and not so murdery we are now.
-Eating falafel will not make you into a Muslim.
-The method of slaughtering cattle to make the meat halal is not "torturing" animals. It is a common practice throughout the world to slit the throat, the shock completely overshadows the pain. It's fine, don't worry about it.
-Female genital mutilation is not unique to Islamic countries/cultures, it is found across many African and Middle-Eastern countries of different faiths.
-Ramadan was not designed "to starve Muslims into a violent rage" like so many people like to claim, they can eat when the sun sets, they only fast during the day.
-Islam is only a little bit sexist, it's no more sexist than Christianity. It's just that so many Islamic countries have developed very sexist customs, quite independent from their religion.

[Fardin]

I shall also clear up some misconceptions:

Thank you for your points, I'll explain some of your points more:

-What most of us call the "terrorist scarf" is actually called a hijab and there's nothing scary about it. It's just a normal scarf.

Actually that scarf is for the sand storms and every people who are in the range of sand storms are wearing those whether they are Muslim or not.We don't wear any of those in Iran, Before the revolution some the men used to wear a wet scarf called "Long" around their necks to cool the blood and body, its pic:

-When Muslims dress up like ninjas it's not so they can do terrorism stuff/fight samurai, it's actually a traditional garment called a niqab.

Those dresses are called "Chadour". Iranian Chadours are like this:

-"Allahu Akbar" doesn't mean "we're terrorists and we're going to murder you now," it means "God is Great", which is just as silly and scary, but different strokes for different folks. It's only in rare circumstances should you be afraid of this phrase.

Allahu Akbar means "God is greater" and we say it when we've done a great job to don't get so proud.Shouting this phrase after killing innocents is very stupid.

-Some Muslims can actually take jokes, they're just hard to find sometimes, but they do exist.

This one is a misconception itself, we don't mock serious things like politics and religious things but the in other things,you should come and see yourself.

-Not all Muslims are brown, some Muslims are black. The largest Muslim nation is Indonesia, the majority of that nation is usually considered Asian and I saw an Albino man in Egypt. So there's at least one white Muslim.

Being brown is because of the weather(not for Arabs), most of the Iranians(Aryans) race is from the Caucasians.I am a good example myself,My hands are brown because of the sunlight and the rest of my body is white, most of the Iranians living in Europe are good proofs for my words.

-Not all Muslims hate Jews. (Hating Israel is not the same as hating Jews)

Muslims do not hate the Jews, we hate the Zionists.

-Eating falafel will not make you into a Muslim.

You should really try that specially the spicy ones, Abadan city in Iran is the capital of Falafel (don't miss the spicy ones) ,You will see flags of Brazil in every corner of the city because it is the capital of Iranians football too.

-Female genital mutilation is not unique to Islamic countries/cultures, it is found across many African and Middle-Eastern countries of different faiths.

There is nothing like this in Iran.

-Ramadan was not designed "to starve Muslims into a violent rage" like so many people like to claim, they can eat when the sun sets, they only fast during the day.

We fast in the Ramadan month to remember the situation of those who don't have anything to eat.

[Himster]

This one is a misconception itself, we don't mock serious things like politics and religious things but the in other things,you should come and see yourself.

Mocking important things (like politics and religious things) is essential to a healthy and energetic society, as a means of self examination. Immunity from criticism/mocking gives a thing/idea undue reverence, this is how the Nazis maintained control, Saddam, Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin: a healthy dose of humour will stop such situations from gaining too much power. This is the biggest cultural difference and the most difficult to overcome and the biggest source of misunderstandings.
Mocking other things is mere entertainment.
The perceived humourless nature of the Islamic faith gives it an additional and sinister aspect. This makes muslims uncommonly scary and what one fears, one will hate eventually.

Dear Muslims, please ensure world peace: get a sense of humour.

[sumskilz]

-When Muslims dress up like ninjas it's not so they can do terrorism stuff/fight samurai, it's actually a traditional garment called a niqab.

Are you sure?

[Himster]

Are you sure?

Okay, I made a mistake. I'm enough of a man to admit when I'm wrong.
Usually, wearing a Niqab doesn't mean a Muslim intends to do terrorism/fight samurai.

[DaVinci]

Yes,of course. We are the God's best creatures in the earth, Why the God created us different from the animals,we are able to think,we are able to decide but why?
Animals have their instinct and we have the faculty of thought,Why?
You think despite all the differences, we should act like animals again and obey every contemptible instincts of ourselves?
We are here to make a difference, we must be different from the animals,This is our fate.

Fardin, here is the core of reasoning by the Abrahamic religions (monotheism), i think, the basis, on which in these religions everything is built up. The creation idea by the one-god and the distinction of the human.

From where did we humans come in regard of religion? Answer: The nature religions see or saw humans as part of the nature. They were inferior to the nature, thus "gods" were seen in the nature-powers (everything lived in the thinking of the nature-folks, from which we derive), fear and admiration of the nature was the thing.

The difference then: The Abrahamic religions over-highed the human as God even-picture, who has a god-given task, a (social) construct, where the human was differentiated from the rest of the existent world.
Just an ideology, which gave or gives a very simple answer to still not complete answered items and philosophical themes (the sense of life, life and death, etc.).
Plus, that it created a new ethic, which in itself was a necessary thing, ie. to provide a rule of law and authority (positive to some degree), here the one-god-law and its servants who oversee the society. A society management.

It (the distinction of the human) contradicts with all nowadays science-knowledge. Here, you should start to study the according sciences, checking them out is enough (means: Not just really go to university for all according sciences).
All your points above of "why" are not anymore overwhelming mysteries. Example, the idea of possibly solely instinct-acting by animals is a myth, besides that possibly somebody believes, humans are free of instinct-acting (which is: Acting by key-triggers, we humans have that as well).
What differentiates us? The high degree of the developed capability of the brain by homo sapiens sapiens, this is what made us superior to all other creatures on earth.

The theme is philosophical as we still have not complete knowledge, but it is highly anthropological, aka science about the human itself plus its developed culture(s).
Imo. (and that goes with science knowledge), religions have been "invented" (besides the already said aspects) because of spiritual rites, which began, as the people were able to produce and keep fire-places. Eating together around the fire which brought heating (warmth source) and social inter-acting started here. Besides singing and making sound, also the language and creative art were developed due to this (this developed culture also provided or furthered the big capability of the brain). Rites formed which became more and more spiritual shaped. Finally the thinking about death and life ... and the idea of an afterlife etc. (example: ancesture-cult, death-cult), priest-castes formed, and those were the people who didn't had to work for the survival (collect and hunt etc.), but had time to research (observing the nature, especially also the sky) and imagine things, plus teaching them. The birth of science and school, and that what we call religion.

The religion of one-god and its laws became prominent in the areas, where humans developed its first high-cultures, urban (trade) centers, which needed kind of law and order.
Wasn't it Zoroastrism as the first monotheist belief? Judaism, Christianism and then Islam developed that idea further.
All of them derived from the earliest urban centers of humans, which but had to compete with the origin of former existing religion, the polytheist beliefs (developed framework of thousands of years of culture).
First pure nature gods, later imaged as "persons" (example, the greek mythological world). The idea of personality and one lead-god possibly brought up the idea of the one-god image (besides, that the one-god idea had also other advantages; one simple example: Reducing rivalities and conflicts).

[Infidel144]

If you had any question about Islam or its branches (Shia , Sunni or …) and Islamic politics, We'll answer gladly.

I tried to answer every question honestly and based on Sharia law.If you( not you Infidel144 ) have any unanswered questions,you can ask and I give you my word you'll get an honest answer.

No worries.

when I know the fact that the Tabari history is distorted, Why should I bother myself to explain more.Only expert historians who can distinguish between false and true history can use it.

What Fardin 'knows' is not proof, nor really even evidence. I suspect what Fardin means is Tabari's historical account disagrees with Fardin's preconception, and thus it must needs be distorted. And Tabari was Sunni, and Fardin does not "use Sunni sources".

The prophet was trying to spread Islam and they tryed to kill him and the muslims.A Muslim has to spread Islam even if his life is in danger.

Yes, the prophet was trying to spread apostasy among the Meccans, and after enduring years of prophet Muhammad insulting and reviling their religion, some of the Meccans tried to kill him. Though the prophet had left for Medina just before, Imam Ali was present and the Meccans did not kill him instead.
Now, oddly enough, Christians are supposed to spread Christianity e.g. "He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation." Mark 16:15
However, by Fardin's own words, doing so can be a death sentence in Islamic society:
"Apostates won't be sentenced to death unless they do big crimes against Islam and Islamic society like trying to spread Apostasy in Islamic society."
So, again, no trying to kill prophet Muhammad, who was an apostate, and was trying to spread apostasy, was not an act of war.
Unless, of course, killing those who try to spread apostacy in Islamic society is an act of war...
When prophet Muhammad left Mecca and emigrated to Medina, the Meccans did nothing, until after prophet Muhammad ordered a series of attacks on Meccan caravans.

I don't care what you've noted, I didn't accept any of your words so don't repeat them for me.

Unfortunately for Fardin, I am not so good at following orders, but I will continue to provide my commentary so that truth may stand out clear from error.

This is not for Ayatollah Khomeini,This fatwa is for Sheykh Toosi and there is no complusion to do this.

Fardin responded to this quote I provided: "... a woman shall not be condemned to death even if she is a Murtadda al-Fitriya [a woman born of Muslim parents], but shall be kept in life imprisonment, and she shall be given beatings at the times of prayer, and she shall be subjected to tightening or scarcity of food. Her repentance shall be accepted. So if she repents, she shall be set free."
Ayatollah Khomeini
While it may be that Ayatollah Khomeini took this from Sheykh Toosi, what I was quoting from was Imam Rouhollah Khomeini's (R.A.) Tahrir Al-Vasilah (Vol. 4). Which is noted as 'consisting of Imam Khomeini's juristic verdicts'.
But what should be noted is that Fardin, as with my queries on Imam Khomeini's fatwa ordering the killing of Salman Rushdie and on the three shi'ite Imams, Imam Mohammad Baqer, Imam Mousa Kazem and Imam Ja'far Sadeq...:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"I am informing all brave Muslims of the world that the author of The Satanic Verses, a text written, edited, and published against Islam, the Prophet of Islam, and the Qur'an, along with all the editors and publishers aware of its contents, are condemned to death. I call on all valiant Muslims wherever they may be in the world to kill them without delay, so that no one will dare insult the sacred beliefs of Muslims henceforth. And whoever is killed in this cause will be a martyr, Allah Willing. Meanwhile if someone has access to the author of the book but is incapable of carrying out the execution, he should inform the people so that [Rushdie] is punished for his actions. Rouhollah al-Mousavi al-Khomeini."
Was Ayatollah Khomeini indulging in an act of war? (I will note here that you chose to answer neither of the questions (for obvious reasons) I asked in connection with Ayatollah Khomeini's Fatwa to believers to kill Rushdie, to wit: do you condemn this fatwa? and: is this fatwa un-islamic?)
Did Imam Mohammad Baqer define an apostate as someone who repudiates Islam and denies the revelation of the Prophet? Did he note that an apostate's repentance will not be accepted, and he must be put to death?
Did Imam Mousa Kazem state that a Muslim who converts to Christianity should be killed?
Did Imam Ja'far Sadeq note that there were at least three instances in which Imam Ali killed individuals who had committed apostasy?

...did not actually answer my question. Fardin's response that it is not compulsory to jail, beat and starve a female apostate (i.e. not compulsory, still means permitted) until she returns to Islam is irrelevant to the question as to whether doing so counts as compulsion.
Considering the Shia and Twelver views on the Imams (they have ismah or a moral infallibility) and similar views about Imam Khomeini, it would be near impossible to answer and still maintain the original argument(s) about the (so-called) misconceptions with any consistency.

Seems you know nothing about how the Qur'an was revealed,God didn't sent a whole Surah just in one time.We have discussed about Tabuk so go read it again.

My statement, in response to Fardin's claim that 9:5 "was revealed when the pagans broke the peace truce between muslims and themselves" was that Surah 9 was revealed after the conquest of Mecca. Much of it about the time of Tabuk and the first portion seems to have been the last revealed.
Now, Fardin's assertion is a strawman, as I did not state it was all sent at one time. Simply that much of it was revealed about the time of Tabuk.
Note also that Fardin did not actually say I was wrong, he merely attempted to throw doubt on my knowledge.
Mecca was conquered during Ramadan 8 AH.
Now for Surah 9:
"This Surah, which is the ninth Surah of the Qur’ān, contains 129 verses and has been
revealed in the ninth year A.H. (anno Hejira). Some parts of the Surah were revealed before the Battle of Tabūk, some parts during the Battle, and other parts were revealed after it."
An Enlightening Commentary into the Light of the Holy Quran


"(It has been narrated) from Abu Abdullah asws having said: ‘(Surah) Al-Fatah (Chapter110) was in year eight, and (Surah) Bara’at was in year nine, and the Farewell Pilgrimage was in year ten’ (after migration to Medina from Mecca)."
Tafseer Hub-e-Ali asws


"Chronologically, verses 1-29 were a notable declaration of State policy promulgated about the month of Shawwal, A.H. 9 and read out by Hadhrat 'Ali at the Pilgrimage two months later [...]. The remainder of the Sura, verses 30-129, was revealed a little earlier..."
Translation Of The Meaning Of The Holy Quran And Commentary In English


As for Tabuk itself, prophet Muhammad, it is supposed, thought the Byzantines had an army at the Byzantine fort of Tabuk and the Byzantine Emperor was going to invade Arabia. So the prophet gathered a force marched north. In the event, there was no Byzantine army there and Muhammad captured it.

If anyone is interested to read more about imaginations of him,you can read my other thread (Specially the last pages)

I think I may need to add in another item on that thread to my response to Fardin's assertion that Jews and Christians have the same rights as Muslims in Iran. Muslims can proselytize and non-Muslims can not.

And now for the five Swords:
Description of Swords by Imam Baqir(A.S.)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As a man of his adherents asked him about the battles of Imam Ali Amirul Muminin(a), Imam Al-Baqir(a) said:
Allah sent the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) and his family, with five swords three of which are unsheathed until wars are ceased. Wars will not cease unless the sun will rise from the west. When this will fall all people will be secured. On that day, "Its faith shall not profit a soul which did not believe before, or earn good through its faith. (Holy Qur'an 6:158) The fourth sword is detained. The fifth is unsheathed; others unsheathe it and we judge in it.
The three unsheathed swords are as follows:
One is unsheathed against the Arab polytheists. Allah the Glorified says: Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush.( Holy Qur'an 9:5) But if they repent-i.e. then believe-and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith. (Holy Qur'an 9:11) These people are either killed or convert to Islam. Their fortunes are regarded as spoils. Their progenies are captives according to the practices of the Prophet(S.A.W.). He captured, overlooked, and accepted atonement.
The second sword is against the Dhimmis. Allah the Praised says: And you shall speak to men-i.e. the Dhimmis-good words. (Holy Qur'an 2:83) This Verse was repealed afterwards by Allah's saying: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. (Holy Qur'an 9:29)
Nothing will be accepted from the Dhimmis, who are enjoying the protection of the Islamic state, except the tribute otherwise, they are killed, their fortunes taken as spoils, and their progenies as captives. If they accept to pay the tribute, it will be prohibited to take them as captives and to seize their fortunes. In addition, it will be lawful to marry from them. For those who declare war against us, it is lawful for us to capture them and seize their fortunes. In addition, it is prohibited to marry from them. Nothing will be accepted from them except converting to Islam, paying the tribute, or being fought to death.
The third sword is against the non-Arab polytheists, like the Turks,Daylam, and Khazar. In the beginning of the sura in which He mentions the affairs of the atheists, Allah says: If you encounter the disbelievers in a battle, strike-off their heads. Take them as captives when they are defeated. Then you may set them free - after capture - as a favor to them, with or without a ransom-between the Muslims and them-, when the battle is over (Holy Qur'an 47:4) Nothing will be accepted from these people except being killed or converting to Islam. It is unlawful for us to marry from them as long as they are in state of war against us.
The detained sword is that against people of rebel and interpretation. Allah says: If two parties among the believers start to fight against each other, restore peace among them. If one party rebels against the other, fight against the rebellious one until he surrenders to the command of Allah. (Holy Qu'ran 49:9) When this verse was revealed, the Prophet(S.A.W.) said: One of you will fight for the interpretation of the Quran in the same way as I fought for its revelations." As he was asked about that one, he(S.A.W.) said: He is Imam Ali Amirul Muminin(A.S.).
Ammar-bin-Yasir said: I fought under this pennon three times with the Prophet(S.A.W.). This is the fourth. By Allah I swear, if they beat us to take us back to Hagar - a region - , we will be sure that we are the right party and they are the wrong."
With these people, Amirul Muminin Ali (A.S.) followed the same practices that the Prophet(S.A.W.) followed with the people of Mecca when he conquered it. He did not capture their families.
The Prophet(S.A.W.) said: He who closes his door and keep himself indoors will be safe. He who disarms himself will be safe."
In the same way Amirul Muminin(A.S.) instructed his army-after the victory in the battle of Jamal-not to capture any one, kill a wounded, or chase any absconder. He who disarmed himself would be safe.
The unsheathed sword is that of retaliation. Allah the Glorified said: Capital punishment for the murder of a person: an eye for an eye... (Holy Qur'an 5:45) The custodians of the victim (the killed person) unsheathe this sword while the judge is ours.
These were the swords with which Allah sent Muhammad(S.A.W.). He who denies them or even one of them or anything of their narration or rulings will be recknoed as disbelieving in that which Allah the Elevated revealed to His Prophet Muhammad(S.A.W.).
Reference:Tuhaf al-Uqool

[Fardin]

@Infidel144
Tabari History is a distorted source not because it is inconsistent to my words,because it is inconsistent to the most of the historians of that era like the important ones I posted before,let me give an example:
According to Tabari history Imam Hussain was involved in massacre of Iranians but every historian say Imam Hussain wasn't involved in any war even the minor fights.
Imam Ali was the greatest warrior of Arabs and he had fought in many battles for Islam but The Omar the second Caliph ordered for an non Islamic war,he disagreed the war and didn't take part in any of those wars and ordered his sons (Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain) to do so,but Tabari history says Imam Hussain was involved in capturing 2 fortresses and killing the civilians and captives ,maybe Tabari had wondered how is possible that the greatest warriors of Arabs do not go to war so he made a scenario to place this story in real history, even his claim is denied indirectly by himself.there is many other examples like this too, so everyone who wants to read and use it, must be an expert historian and must have read the other history books related to that era to see which opinion is in majority.Tabari history is a really good source but not for amateurs like you.


What is a prophet's job? Spreading the words of god, the pagans tried to kill him not because their gods were insulted, they tried to kill the prophet because the prophet said the slaves are humans and they have human rights and tried to spread Islam between the slaves so some of the slaves became rebels to their masters then the slave masters killed and tortured many slaves( Balal Habashi was one of those slaves who became one of the closest companions of the prophet later) but it didn't calm down the rage of the slaves so the slave masters(Meccan nobles) tried to kill the prophet to put an end to this.
They didn't kill Imam Ali because his father was one of the greatest men of Mecca but the prophet was an orphan and he had no serious supporter.Many Muslims migrated to Ethiopia to survive the massacre of mislims in mecca by the Meccan nobles,they even sent some men to find and kill them in Ethiopia but Ja'far ibn AbuTalib (Imam Ali's brother) introduced Islam to the Ethiopian king (he became Muslim some years later) and he allowed the muslims to live in there and provided their safety from the nobles of Mecca.
After the migration of the prophet to the Yathreb(Medina's previous name) most of the muslims came to Medina after the prophet and then the nobles of mecca sacked every property of the muslims who migrated to Medina and tried to sell them in Syria so the prophet ordered to raid the caravans to retrieve the muslims property that was sacked by pagans.


Jizya is not an alternative between death and convert,it's an extra tax for non muslims who are living under Islamic rule,if any non muslim didn't have the money to pay the tax he will be forgiven.
https://www.al-islam.org/philosophy-islamic-laws-nasir-makarim-shirazi-jafar-subhani/question-18-what-purpose-jizya


The verses of Qur'an are revealed through 23 years and Imam Ali was the person who noted and memorized the verses and then wrote the first Qur'an.
Surah AlTawbah wasn't an exception between all those ,most of the verses of Surah AlTawbah was revealed after capturing Mecca but if you read the Sha'ne Nozul of that verse ,every scholar has stated it's for the pagan's breaking of truce event.
in 9:2 there is four months respite for the pagans to reconsider the truce but after 4 months(sacred months) in 9:5 muslims were allowed to attack them.Comparing this to the Tabuk's events doesn't make sense.


Nowadays any form of slavery is forbidden.Christianity and Judaism or Zoroastrianism are considered different from apostacy by Islam,they live freely and have same rights,they have reserved seats in parliament because no Shia will vote for them.I think this is more than what they expect in a society that 98% of it are Shias.


What places were captured by prophet? the prophet led army to Tabuk for a battle not for capturing anything.
http://en.wikishia.net/view/Battle_of_Tabuk

Mocking important things (like politics and religious things) is essential to a healthy and energetic society, as a means of self examination. Immunity from criticism/mocking gives a thing/idea undue reverence, this is how the Nazis maintained control, Saddam, Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin: a healthy dose of humour will stop such situations from gaining too much power. This is the biggest cultural difference and the most difficult to overcome and the biggest source of misunderstandings.
Mocking other things is mere entertainment.
The perceived humourless nature of the Islamic faith gives it an additional and sinister aspect. This makes muslims uncommonly scary and what one fears, one will hate eventually.

Dear Muslims, please ensure world peace: get a sense of humour.

I didn't say we don't criticize the government but insulting is prohibited in Islam in any condition even in wars.
I said we don't mock it doesn't mean we close our eyes to create something like Nazi, here is some of the caricatures for politics:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Mohammad Reza Nemat Zadeh is Minister of Industry,Trade and Mines, critisized for increase car prices

more: http://www.persian-star.org/cartoon-3/

[Muizer]

I didn't say we don't criticize the government but insulting is prohibited in Islam in any condition even in wars.

There have been incidents where it seems muslims wanted to extend that prohibition to non-muslims. Sometimes even for things said or done half a world away by people of little importance. It must be hard to have to restrain oneself, when others are under no such obligation and we get to see regular footage of people who clearly aren't capable of doing so.

[MayaLin]

There is no one conception of Islam, its whatever you want it to be depending on whether you are violent or non violent. Its why people, Imams who spend their entire lives studying the Quran can end in interpreting it in violent ways and finding justification in it.

And anyone intellectually honest using the Quran or the Quran and other Islamic sources realises its not that hard to find justification in violence from a man who lived a life filled with violence and conquest regardless of whether it was for self defence.

That is without considering the genocide he was involved in of the Banu Qurazi

[Fardin]

There have been incidents where it seems muslims wanted to extend that prohibition to non-muslims. Sometimes even for things said or done half a world away by people of little importance. It must be hard to have to restrain oneself, when others are under no such obligation and we get to see regular footage of people who clearly aren't capable of doing so.

We demand from your governments to mind their own businesses(no offense) and we won't react for "people of little importance", we have problems with the governments not with people. Those who attack civilians are not muslim, they are nothing but worthless cowards.

There is no one conception of Islam, its whatever you want it to be depending on whether you are violent or non violent. Its why people, Imams who spend their entire lives studying the Quran can end in interpreting it in violent ways and finding justification in it.
And anyone intellectually honest using the Quran or the Quran and other Islamic sources realises its not that hard to find justification in violence from a man who lived a life filled with violence and conquest regardless of whether it was for self defence.
That is without considering the genocide he was involved in of the Banu Qurazi

We(Shias) have 29 of those people who have spent their entire lives studying Islam but non of them told us to bomb innocents , nuke cities,support terrorists , support the mother of terrorists , create and support a child killer regime , provide chemical weapons for a mad dog , enslave the entire Africa , loot the countries , rape the people of the countries that were conquered , kill the natives of a whole continent and use agent orange against civilians.Of course you don't know any of these as a genocide.
You westerners really speak good but when it comes to doing part you forget all of the good words.
http://en.wikishia.net/view/Battle_of_Banu_Qurayza

[MayaLin]

We demand from your governments to mind their own businesses(no offense) and we won't react for "people of little importance", we have problems with the governments not with people. Those who attack civilians are not muslim, they are nothing but worthless cowards.


We(Shias) have 29 of those people who have spent their entire lives studying Islam but non of them told us to bomb innocents , nuke cities,support terrorists , support the mother of terrorists , provide chemical weapons for a mad dog , enslave the entire Africa , loot the countries , rape the people of the countries that were conquered , kill the natives of a whole continent and use agent orange for civilians.
You westerners really speak good but when it comes to doing part you forget all of the good words.
http://en.wikishia.net/view/Battle_of_Banu_Qurayza

So you are admitting that you have one interpretation and others have their own. Well done thank you, so Islam is whatever someone wants it to be and you admit this, you just think your interpretation is better. Also its not like Shia hasn't had its terrorists, Hazara committed some awful atrocities against other muslims never mind us so called westerners....am I a westerner really? Huh. Must tell my parents lol. They must have adopted me.

as to the Banu Qurayza we know they were killed just not the exact numbers but the most accurate historical sources are the jewish ones and we know it was in the hundreds but we also know he killed some for certain from the Quran, presume you won't disagree with that.

"He caused those of the People of the Book who helped them (i.e. the Quraysh) to come out of their forts. Some you killed, some you took prisoner."

So there is the legitimisation of violence no matter what you want to call it or how you want to justify it.

[Fardin]

So you are admitting that you have one interpretation and others have their own. Well done thank you, so Islam is whatever someone wants it to be and you admit this, you just think your interpretation is better. Also its not like Shia hasn't had its terrorists, Hazara committed some awful atrocities against other muslims never mind us so called westerners....am I a westerner really? Huh. Must tell my parents lol. They must have adopted me.

I don't admit anything .I tell the truth,you can accept it or you can close your eyes and keep blowing your whistle.
I fallow Mr. Khamenei but I've never stated an obligation based on him, I've always tried to bring the sentences of the vast majority.
All of the Shias are not angels, you'll find heretics and jerks in every society but even with considering all those we are far better than any nation in these things.Just watch the count of the people who were killed in US in 2015 by gun.
Let's count and compare the death toll caused by muslims and western countries,You count ours,I'll count yours(wherever you are from).OK?

as to the Banu Qurayza we know they were killed just not the exact numbers but the most accurate historical sources are the jewish ones and we know it was in the hundreds but we also know he killed some for certain from the Quran, presume you won't disagree with that.

He forgave all of the Jews who were defeated in previous battles but they retaliated his favors by joining the pagans army and fighting against muslims again, why should anyone do a mistake twice?

. "He caused those of the People of the Book who helped them (i.e. the Quraysh) to come out of their forts. Some you killed, some you took prisoner."

So there is the legitimisation of violence no matter what you want to call it or how you want to justify it.

I'm not sure what are you talking about.

I think I have a muslim neighbour, should I call the police?

Mine field is my recommendation, just keep your eyes open.

[MayaLin]

I don't admit anything .I tell the truth,you can accept it or you can close your eyes and keep blowing your whistle.
I fallow Mr. Khamenei but I've never stated an obligation based on him, I've always tried to bring the sentences of the vast majority.
All of the Shias are not angels, you'll find heretics and jerks in every society but even with considering all those we are far better than any nation in these things.Just watch the count of the people who were killed in US in 2015 by gun.
Let's count and compare the death toll caused by muslims and western countries,You count ours,I'll count yours(wherever you are from).OK?


He forgave all of the Jews who were defeated in previous battles but they retaliated his favors by joining the pagans army and fighting against muslims again, why should anyone do a mistake twice?


I'm not sure what are you talking about.


Mine field is my recommendation, just keep your eyes open.

Is there a group of muslims who disagree with you yes or no? There is no objective standard of Islam just on that basis, no reason to believe one over another, its mostly just where you were born.

Come on man I thought you were here to clear up misconceptions lol

[Infidel144]

We demand from your governments to mind their own businesses(no offense) and we won't react for "people of little importance", we have problems with the governments not with people. Those who attack civilians are not muslim, they are nothing but worthless cowards.

Read carefully what Fardin wrote here.

Now go back to an earlier post of mine (#68) in which I posted this Fatwa from Imam Khomeini:
"We are from Allah and to Allah we shall return. I am informing all brave Muslims of the world that the author of The Satanic Verses, a text written, edited, and published against Islam, the Prophet of Islam, and the Qur'an, along with all the editors and publishers aware of its contents, are condemned to death. I call on all valiant Muslims wherever they may be in the world to kill them without delay, so that no one will dare insult the sacred beliefs of Muslims henceforth. And whoever is killed in this cause will be a martyr, Allah Willing. Meanwhile if someone has access to the author of the book but is incapable of carrying out the execution, he should inform the people so that [Rushdie] is punished for his actions. Rouhollah al-Mousavi al-Khomeini."

Note that I asked two questions of Fardin about this:
Is this un-Islamic?
and
Do you condemn this Fatwa?

Fardin did not answer either question.

Now put Rushdie in his place in what Fardin said above. Rushdie being 'civilian' and 'people' not government, and of little importance.

[Fardin]

I think this fatwa was a little emotional rather than Islamic .Salman Rushdie is quite hated in Iran but nobody took this fatwa serious. Don't call him Imam, nobody deserves this title but 12 Imams.
This fatwa was given when some of the governments involved themselves in this dispute so Mr. Khomeini reacted to those governments acts.