Political Crossfire Forums

[Saracen]

kain, I hope you don't mind me asking, but are you Muslim?

And Eynon81, yes, I'd like to see kain elaborate on it as well.

[The_Right_Honourable]

Moath wrote: The_Right_Honourable wrote: I have a question on this quote about not being able to ally with Jew and Christians against other Muslims.

Can a Jewish or Christian state not be morally right to attack a muslim state? Surely no one can doubt that it was right and just to defeat the Taliban (Although theyre still there, stupid, ineffective US Army be damned) in Afghanistan?

If for example Syria invaded Lebinon again and started to kick out the Christians, would it still be wrong for the West to come and help liberate a Muslim nation?

Good question. A Jewish and/or Christian state such as the US had its own right to attack the Taliban. No one in the Middle East opposed such a thing. But this verse clearly speaks about active alliance, not passive alliance.

As for your example, you provided an impossible situation. Syria itself has many Christians, almost as many Muslims and, believe it or not, Jews, even though the Muslims are in the majority. I don't think that Syria would kick out Lebanon's Christians, considering they are 50% of Lebanon's population, and maybe even more!

It was just a hypothetical. Say some cleric became a Muslim version of Hitler or Stalin and went on a mad crusade. Killing Shias or Sunnis or those who didnt follow Sharia?

Couldnt not the West join with Muslims to find this together?

Its all interpretation i geuss. I believe all religious texts to be the word on man. Often the word of wise men but sometimes not.

[Saracen]

TRH wrote: It was just a hypothetical. Say some cleric became a Muslim version of Hitler or Stalin and went on a mad crusade. Killing Shias or Sunnis or those who didnt follow Sharia?

Couldnt not the West join with Muslims to find this together?

Its all interpretation i geuss. I believe all religious texts to be the word on man. Often the word of wise men but sometimes not.

Another wise question. I think that cleric wouldn't be fundamentally Muslim to begin with, because Islam is against Nazism.

[The_Right_Honourable]

Moath wrote: TRH wrote: It was just a hypothetical. Say some cleric became a Muslim version of Hitler or Stalin and went on a mad crusade. Killing Shias or Sunnis or those who didnt follow Sharia?

Couldnt not the West join with Muslims to find this together?

Its all interpretation i geuss. I believe all religious texts to be the word on man. Often the word of wise men but sometimes not.

Another wise question. I think that cleric wouldn't be fundamentally Muslim to begin with, because Islam is against Nazism.

True. But Stalin wasn't a true socialist. He cared nothing for human life, he was still loved and followed.

[Saracen]

TRH wrote: True. But Stalin wasn't a true socialist. He cared nothing for human life, he was still loved and followed.

Thus, by taking this argument, one could say that this person is not a Muslim. However, I can't answer this question because I'm not that much of an expert on this topic.

[Glorfindel]

The_Right_Honourable wrote: Moath wrote: TRH wrote: It was just a hypothetical. Say some cleric became a Muslim version of Hitler or Stalin and went on a mad crusade. Killing Shias or Sunnis or those who didnt follow Sharia?

Couldnt not the West join with Muslims to find this together?

Its all interpretation i geuss. I believe all religious texts to be the word on man. Often the word of wise men but sometimes not.

Another wise question. I think that cleric wouldn't be fundamentally Muslim to begin with, because Islam is against Nazism.

True. But Stalin wasn't a true socialist. He cared nothing for human life, he was still loved and followed.

stalin was loved? I think you mean feared...

and about your question... first a true muslim leader would think more than once before fighting other muslims... in fact he would not fight them unless he had no other choice..

and if you picture Saddam as a muslim leader... then you are badly mistaken... Saddam was not a muslim even if he claimed to be... in fact even the teachings of his party was against everything Islam is teaching..let aside his claim for Arabic supremacy... which also disobeys the teaching of Islam.. in Islam the best man is not the one of arabic origin, but the one who obeys the teachings of God and fear him the most..no matter where he is from or what of nationality he is...


second thing... even if a muslim country invades another one... I think other muslim states should intervene... but not americans or europeans... unless all muslim states failed to solve that problem.. and even if the west was allowed to meddle,, I would have to have enough guarantees that they will get out after the injustice was over with...

what I fear most is like the situation with American forces in Saudi Arabia...

I mean c'mon... the excuse for them to stay there was to make sure that Iraq does not invade Saudi Arabia... now Iraq government under Saddam is no more...and Iraq itself does not have an army anymore...

I want to know what is the justification for all that American forces still sationed in Saudi Arabia... i think it goes far beyond protecting Saudi Arabia and assuring its safety

I think colonization age is not over yet... it has taken a new form, thats all

you know why people hate america? because america wants every nation to be like it... if you don't get into others' business.. and mind your own, nobody would hate you this much...

and if you also obey the internation laws that you yourself had written years ago and stop putting muslims in secret "consentration camps",, like Guantanamo and the others nobody knows about yet.. and stop killing and bombing the hell out of Iraqis and Afghans...people may stop cursing your name every now and then

[jeechoscopy]

Eynon81 wrote: kain wrote: Mangas_Coloradas wrote: Well the obvious answer should be yes, but this is a quote from the Koran

"Belivers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They
are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall
become one of their number. God does not guide the wrongdoers"

There is a special bond between Muslims and Christians , one day they will become more than allies , united as one , destiny will take its course.

interesting :think: could you elaborate on that?


I'm not sure how Kain consider it about, but I think he indicates the return of Jesus when all Muslims and Christian would be his followers, together.

[Shady]

Many of my friends in real life are Muslim. I am an atheist- so the answer (for me) is yes. We just don't debate religion too terribly much.

[Saracen]

Shady wrote: Many of my friends in real life are Muslim. I am an atheist- so the answer (for me) is yes. We just don't debate religion too terribly much.

Yes indeed. In fact, Muslims are not prohibited from being friends with non-Muslims to begin with.

[Shady]

Moath wrote: Shady wrote: Many of my friends in real life are Muslim. I am an atheist- so the answer (for me) is yes. We just don't debate religion too terribly much.

Yes indeed. In fact, Muslims are not prohibited from being friends with non-Muslims to begin with.

I didn't think so. At least one of my friends is extremely devout and I have yet to here him say that he wasn't allowed to be friends with a nonbeliever.

[Orions]

It shows how much depends on translation. I wonder how many other Koran passages were translated with the intention to provoke hostilities.

[Saracen]

Orions wrote: It shows how much depends on translation. I wonder how many other Koran passages were translated with the intention to provoke hostilities.

Every single one. Just so you know how much many people are willfully ignorant about Islam. You on the other hand are not. :tu: