One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Islamic State Spokesman: "What's Our Crime? We Just Wanted To Apply Sharia"
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
Mar 15, 2019 10:25:59   #
no propaganda please (a regular here)
 
Islamic State Spokesman: "What's Our Crime? We Just Wanted To Apply Sharia"
Robert Spencer

In a new video, an Islamic State (ISIS) spokesman named Abu Abd al-Azeem, “whose speech,” noted Reuters, “is peppered with Koranic recitations,” complained about the bad rap his cuddly group has gotten. “Why are we bombed by planes,” he asked plaintively, “why do all the nations of the unbelieving world come together to fight us?…What is our guilt? What is our crime? We (just) wanted to apply the sharia of Allah.”

Indeed. And now, in light of that statement, here are some questions that mainstream counterterror analysts should ponder deeply: did the Islamic State actually apply Sharia? ISIS is routinely dismissed as un-Islamic, but what exactly did they do that cannot be backed up by specific citations from the Qur’an and Hadith? And if the Islamic State just wanted to apply Sharia, and Sharia is entirely benign and compatible with Western values, as Western analysts also regularly insist, then why did the whole world regard the Islamic State as a criminal entity that must be destroyed? Why was it not welcomed into the family of nations, alongside other Sharia regimes including Saudi Arabia and Iran?

The cognitive dissonance arises, of course, from the assurances we received from the likes of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Kerry, David Cameron, and virtually every other authority in the Western world that the Islamic State was not Islamic, and indeed, had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.


This reached absurd levels during the Obama administration. “ISIL does not operate in the name of any religion,” said Obama’s Deputy State Department spokesperson Marie Harf in August 2014. “The president has been very clear about that, and the more we can underscore that, the better.” Yet Abu Abd al-Azeem’s words above make it abundantly clear, as does every other statement ever issued by ISIS, that the group believes itself to be operating in the name of Islam, and indeed, to embody the fullness of Islamic teaching. In June 2014, a video circulated of a masked Islamic State commander telling a cheering crowd: “By Allah, we embarked on our Jihad only to support the religion of Allah….Allah willing, we will establish a state ruled by the Quran and the Sunna….All of you honorable Muslims are the soldiers of the Muslim State.” He promised that the Islamic State would establish “the Sharia of Allah, the Quran, and the Sunna” as the crowed repeatedly responded with screams of “Allahu akbar.”

Everything ISIS did in its heyday was clearly Islamic. The celebrated beheadings were implementation of a Qur’anic command. The Qur’an says straightforwardly, “When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks” (47:4).

But surely the Islamic State’s practice of kidnapping Yazidi and Christian women and pressing them into sex slavery was un-Islamic, no? No. The Qur’an says that in addition to wives (“two or three or four”), Muslim men may enjoy the “captives of the right hand” (4:3, 4:24). These are specified as being women who have been seized as the spoils of war” (33:50) and are to be used specifically for sexual purposes, as men are to “guard their private parts except from their wives or those their right hands possess” (23:5-6).

If these women are already married, no problem. Islamic law directs that “when a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” (Reliance of the Traveller, 09.13)

ISIS knew this. In the October 2014 issue of its Dabiq magazine, it stated: “Enslaving the families of the kuffar [non-believers] and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Sharia.” In a November 2014 video of gleeful Islamic State jihadis laughing and bantering at a sex slave auction, one of the fighters declares: “Today is the slave market day. Today is the day where this verse applies, ‘Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess, for (then) they are not to be blamed.” That is Qur’an 23:5-6, which tells Muslim men to “guard your private parts except with your wives and the captives of your right hand.”

On December 15, 2014, the Islamic State released a document entitled “Clarification [regarding] the Hudud” – that is, punishments Allah specifies in the Qur’an. This was essentially the Islamic State’s penal code, and every aspect of it was drawn from Islamic teaching.

It mandated death for blasphemy against Allah or Muhammad. The document specified that murder and stealing would be punished by death and crucifixion – that is, crucifixion of the dead body. Murder alone would be punishable by death. Stealing as part of banditry would be rewarded with the amputation of the right hand and the left leg, and terrorizing people would result in exile.

All this was derived from this Qur’anic verse: “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment, except for those who return before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (5:33-34)

Blasphemy against Islam was likewise punishable by death, also as per the Qur’an:

“If they violate their oaths after pledging to keep their covenants, and attack your religion, you may fight the leaders of paganism – you are no longer bound by your covenant with them – that they may refrain” (Qur’an 9:12)

Adulterers were to be stoned to death; fornicators would be given 100 lashes and exile. Stoning was in the hadith – a hadith in which the caliph Umar said it had once been in the Qur’an:

‘Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, “We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,” and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” ‘Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.” (Bukhari 8.86.6829)

Sodomy (homosexuality) was also to be punished by death, as per Muhammad’s reported words: “If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.” (Sunan Abu Dawood 38:4447)

The hand of the thief would be amputated: “The thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent from Allah. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” (Qur’an 5:38)

Those who drank alcohol would be lashed 80 times, also as per a hadith:

“Abu Huraira said, ‘A man who drank wine was brought to the Prophet. The Prophet said, “Beat him!” Abu Huraira added, “So some of us beat him with our hands, and some with their shoes, and some with their garments (by twisting it) like a lash, and then when we finished, someone said to him, ‘May Allah disgrace you!’ On that the Prophet said, ‘Do not say so, for you are helping Satan to overpower him.'” (Bukhari 8.86.6777)

Slanderers would likewise get eighty lashes:

“And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses – lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after. And those are the defiantly disobedient.” (Qur’an 24:4)

Those caught spying for the unbelievers would be put to death:

“Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever does that has nothing with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the destination.” (Qur’an 3:28)

Apostates would also be put to death:

“They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.” (Qur’an 4:89)

So did the Islamic State just try to implement the Sharia? Yes. Western analysts and policymakers should ponder the implications of that fact. But they won’t.

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 10:56:15   #
L8erToots
 
no propaganda please wrote:
Islamic State Spokesman: "What's Our Crime? We Just Wanted To Apply Sharia"
Robert Spencer

In a new video, an Islamic State (ISIS) spokesman named Abu Abd al-Azeem, “whose speech,” noted Reuters, “is peppered with Koranic recitations,” complained about the bad rap his cuddly group has gotten. “Why are we bombed by planes,” he asked plaintively, “why do all the nations of the unbelieving world come together to fight us?…What is our guilt? What is our crime? We (just) wanted to apply the sharia of Allah.”

Indeed. And now, in light of that statement, here are some questions that mainstream counterterror analysts should ponder deeply: did the Islamic State actually apply Sharia? ISIS is routinely dismissed as un-Islamic, but what exactly did they do that cannot be backed up by specific citations from the Qur’an and Hadith? And if the Islamic State just wanted to apply Sharia, and Sharia is entirely benign and compatible with Western values, as Western analysts also regularly insist, then why did the whole world regard the Islamic State as a criminal entity that must be destroyed? Why was it not welcomed into the family of nations, alongside other Sharia regimes including Saudi Arabia and Iran?

The cognitive dissonance arises, of course, from the assurances we received from the likes of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Kerry, David Cameron, and virtually every other authority in the Western world that the Islamic State was not Islamic, and indeed, had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.


This reached absurd levels during the Obama administration. “ISIL does not operate in the name of any religion,” said Obama’s Deputy State Department spokesperson Marie Harf in August 2014. “The president has been very clear about that, and the more we can underscore that, the better.” Yet Abu Abd al-Azeem’s words above make it abundantly clear, as does every other statement ever issued by ISIS, that the group believes itself to be operating in the name of Islam, and indeed, to embody the fullness of Islamic teaching. In June 2014, a video circulated of a masked Islamic State commander telling a cheering crowd: “By Allah, we embarked on our Jihad only to support the religion of Allah….Allah willing, we will establish a state ruled by the Quran and the Sunna….All of you honorable Muslims are the soldiers of the Muslim State.” He promised that the Islamic State would establish “the Sharia of Allah, the Quran, and the Sunna” as the crowed repeatedly responded with screams of “Allahu akbar.”

Everything ISIS did in its heyday was clearly Islamic. The celebrated beheadings were implementation of a Qur’anic command. The Qur’an says straightforwardly, “When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks” (47:4).

But surely the Islamic State’s practice of kidnapping Yazidi and Christian women and pressing them into sex slavery was un-Islamic, no? No. The Qur’an says that in addition to wives (“two or three or four”), Muslim men may enjoy the “captives of the right hand” (4:3, 4:24). These are specified as being women who have been seized as the spoils of war” (33:50) and are to be used specifically for sexual purposes, as men are to “guard their private parts except from their wives or those their right hands possess” (23:5-6).

If these women are already married, no problem. Islamic law directs that “when a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” (Reliance of the Traveller, 09.13)

ISIS knew this. In the October 2014 issue of its Dabiq magazine, it stated: “Enslaving the families of the kuffar [non-believers] and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Sharia.” In a November 2014 video of gleeful Islamic State jihadis laughing and bantering at a sex slave auction, one of the fighters declares: “Today is the slave market day. Today is the day where this verse applies, ‘Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess, for (then) they are not to be blamed.” That is Qur’an 23:5-6, which tells Muslim men to “guard your private parts except with your wives and the captives of your right hand.”

On December 15, 2014, the Islamic State released a document entitled “Clarification [regarding] the Hudud” – that is, punishments Allah specifies in the Qur’an. This was essentially the Islamic State’s penal code, and every aspect of it was drawn from Islamic teaching.

It mandated death for blasphemy against Allah or Muhammad. The document specified that murder and stealing would be punished by death and crucifixion – that is, crucifixion of the dead body. Murder alone would be punishable by death. Stealing as part of banditry would be rewarded with the amputation of the right hand and the left leg, and terrorizing people would result in exile.

All this was derived from this Qur’anic verse: “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment, except for those who return before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (5:33-34)

Blasphemy against Islam was likewise punishable by death, also as per the Qur’an:

“If they violate their oaths after pledging to keep their covenants, and attack your religion, you may fight the leaders of paganism – you are no longer bound by your covenant with them – that they may refrain” (Qur’an 9:12)

Adulterers were to be stoned to death; fornicators would be given 100 lashes and exile. Stoning was in the hadith – a hadith in which the caliph Umar said it had once been in the Qur’an:

‘Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, “We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,” and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” ‘Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.” (Bukhari 8.86.6829)

Sodomy (homosexuality) was also to be punished by death, as per Muhammad’s reported words: “If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.” (Sunan Abu Dawood 38:4447)

The hand of the thief would be amputated: “The thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent from Allah. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” (Qur’an 5:38)

Those who drank alcohol would be lashed 80 times, also as per a hadith:

“Abu Huraira said, ‘A man who drank wine was brought to the Prophet. The Prophet said, “Beat him!” Abu Huraira added, “So some of us beat him with our hands, and some with their shoes, and some with their garments (by twisting it) like a lash, and then when we finished, someone said to him, ‘May Allah disgrace you!’ On that the Prophet said, ‘Do not say so, for you are helping Satan to overpower him.'” (Bukhari 8.86.6777)

Slanderers would likewise get eighty lashes:

“And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses – lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after. And those are the defiantly disobedient.” (Qur’an 24:4)

Those caught spying for the unbelievers would be put to death:

“Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever does that has nothing with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the destination.” (Qur’an 3:28)

Apostates would also be put to death:

“They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.” (Qur’an 4:89)

So did the Islamic State just try to implement the Sharia? Yes. Western analysts and policymakers should ponder the implications of that fact. But they won’t.
Islamic State Spokesman: "What's Our Crime? W... (show quote)

You asked, "why did the whole world regard the Islamic State as a criminal entity that must be destroyed? Why was it not welcomed into the family of nations, alongside other Sharia regimes including Saudi Arabia and Iran?"
From what I read in "Management of Savagery", they were not "welcomed" because (I'm paraphrasing) they were showing Islam's true colors, plans and punishments too soon - they wanted the Western world to view Islam as a peaceful religion until it was too late. They complained that with each brutal punishment shown to the world to make a statement, the next had to be more brutal (as we saw it was). The other Islamic nations agreed with ISIS in (Islamic) principle, they just did not approve of their impatience and timeline.
A good comparison would be a molester and a rapist; one grooms, the other attacks instantly, but the end result is the same.
For us to think we're safe from Islam because ISIS has been defeated would be a grave mistake.

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 11:41:09   #
Canuckus Deploracus (a regular here)
 
What I love about Robert Spencer is that he doesn't even try to respect the intelligence of his readers... Simply relies on their fear of Islam to ensure that they won't do any vetting of his work...

Just a small example...Surah 47:4 (the first example given by Spencer in the above article) is a reference to meeting unbelievers in battle... In which case Muslims are instructed to kill them... But only until they are subdued... Then the fighting (and killing) stops...

Now... We might find it barbaric to kill someone in battle, but there are numerous cultures that do just that... I myself would probably go with the whole kill your enemy in battle option if the situation ever arose...

I leave it to you to vet the rest of the article...

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 11:52:48   #
Rose42 (a regular here)
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

Just a small example...Surah 47:4 (the first example given by Spencer in the above article) is a reference to meeting unbelievers in battle... In which case Muslims are instructed to kill them... But only until they are subdued... Then the fighting (and killing) stops...


Is it? This is Surah 47:4.

"47:4. So, when you meet those who disbelieve, smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly. Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity or ransom, until the war lays down its burden. If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost, "

It's killing. Where is it suggested that its meeting unbelievers in battle?

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 12:18:19   #
Sicilianthing (suspended)
 
no propaganda please wrote:
Islamic State Spokesman: "What's Our Crime? We Just Wanted To Apply Sharia"
Robert Spencer

In a new video, an Islamic State (ISIS) spokesman named Abu Abd al-Azeem, “whose speech,” noted Reuters, “is peppered with Koranic recitations,” complained about the bad rap his cuddly group has gotten. “Why are we bombed by planes,” he asked plaintively, “why do all the nations of the unbelieving world come together to fight us?…What is our guilt? What is our crime? We (just) wanted to apply the sharia of Allah.”

Indeed. And now, in light of that statement, here are some questions that mainstream counterterror analysts should ponder deeply: did the Islamic State actually apply Sharia? ISIS is routinely dismissed as un-Islamic, but what exactly did they do that cannot be backed up by specific citations from the Qur’an and Hadith? And if the Islamic State just wanted to apply Sharia, and Sharia is entirely benign and compatible with Western values, as Western analysts also regularly insist, then why did the whole world regard the Islamic State as a criminal entity that must be destroyed? Why was it not welcomed into the family of nations, alongside other Sharia regimes including Saudi Arabia and Iran?

The cognitive dissonance arises, of course, from the assurances we received from the likes of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Kerry, David Cameron, and virtually every other authority in the Western world that the Islamic State was not Islamic, and indeed, had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.


This reached absurd levels during the Obama administration. “ISIL does not operate in the name of any religion,” said Obama’s Deputy State Department spokesperson Marie Harf in August 2014. “The president has been very clear about that, and the more we can underscore that, the better.” Yet Abu Abd al-Azeem’s words above make it abundantly clear, as does every other statement ever issued by ISIS, that the group believes itself to be operating in the name of Islam, and indeed, to embody the fullness of Islamic teaching. In June 2014, a video circulated of a masked Islamic State commander telling a cheering crowd: “By Allah, we embarked on our Jihad only to support the religion of Allah….Allah willing, we will establish a state ruled by the Quran and the Sunna….All of you honorable Muslims are the soldiers of the Muslim State.” He promised that the Islamic State would establish “the Sharia of Allah, the Quran, and the Sunna” as the crowed repeatedly responded with screams of “Allahu akbar.”

Everything ISIS did in its heyday was clearly Islamic. The celebrated beheadings were implementation of a Qur’anic command. The Qur’an says straightforwardly, “When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks” (47:4).

But surely the Islamic State’s practice of kidnapping Yazidi and Christian women and pressing them into sex slavery was un-Islamic, no? No. The Qur’an says that in addition to wives (“two or three or four”), Muslim men may enjoy the “captives of the right hand” (4:3, 4:24). These are specified as being women who have been seized as the spoils of war” (33:50) and are to be used specifically for sexual purposes, as men are to “guard their private parts except from their wives or those their right hands possess” (23:5-6).

If these women are already married, no problem. Islamic law directs that “when a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” (Reliance of the Traveller, 09.13)

ISIS knew this. In the October 2014 issue of its Dabiq magazine, it stated: “Enslaving the families of the kuffar [non-believers] and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Sharia.” In a November 2014 video of gleeful Islamic State jihadis laughing and bantering at a sex slave auction, one of the fighters declares: “Today is the slave market day. Today is the day where this verse applies, ‘Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess, for (then) they are not to be blamed.” That is Qur’an 23:5-6, which tells Muslim men to “guard your private parts except with your wives and the captives of your right hand.”

On December 15, 2014, the Islamic State released a document entitled “Clarification [regarding] the Hudud” – that is, punishments Allah specifies in the Qur’an. This was essentially the Islamic State’s penal code, and every aspect of it was drawn from Islamic teaching.

It mandated death for blasphemy against Allah or Muhammad. The document specified that murder and stealing would be punished by death and crucifixion – that is, crucifixion of the dead body. Murder alone would be punishable by death. Stealing as part of banditry would be rewarded with the amputation of the right hand and the left leg, and terrorizing people would result in exile.

All this was derived from this Qur’anic verse: “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment, except for those who return before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (5:33-34)

Blasphemy against Islam was likewise punishable by death, also as per the Qur’an:

“If they violate their oaths after pledging to keep their covenants, and attack your religion, you may fight the leaders of paganism – you are no longer bound by your covenant with them – that they may refrain” (Qur’an 9:12)

Adulterers were to be stoned to death; fornicators would be given 100 lashes and exile. Stoning was in the hadith – a hadith in which the caliph Umar said it had once been in the Qur’an:

‘Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, “We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,” and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” ‘Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.” (Bukhari 8.86.6829)

Sodomy (homosexuality) was also to be punished by death, as per Muhammad’s reported words: “If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.” (Sunan Abu Dawood 38:4447)

The hand of the thief would be amputated: “The thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent from Allah. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” (Qur’an 5:38)

Those who drank alcohol would be lashed 80 times, also as per a hadith:

“Abu Huraira said, ‘A man who drank wine was brought to the Prophet. The Prophet said, “Beat him!” Abu Huraira added, “So some of us beat him with our hands, and some with their shoes, and some with their garments (by twisting it) like a lash, and then when we finished, someone said to him, ‘May Allah disgrace you!’ On that the Prophet said, ‘Do not say so, for you are helping Satan to overpower him.'” (Bukhari 8.86.6777)

Slanderers would likewise get eighty lashes:

“And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses – lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after. And those are the defiantly disobedient.” (Qur’an 24:4)

Those caught spying for the unbelievers would be put to death:

“Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever does that has nothing with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the destination.” (Qur’an 3:28)

Apostates would also be put to death:

“They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.” (Qur’an 4:89)

So did the Islamic State just try to implement the Sharia? Yes. Western analysts and policymakers should ponder the implications of that fact. But they won’t.
Islamic State Spokesman: "What's Our Crime? W... (show quote)


>>>

And people wonder why the New Zealand Patriots Attacked the Mosque ?

Ha...

Rotflmfaaaaaoooooooofffffffffffff !!!!!!

Go Patriots !

Go Robert Spencer....

Good bye to all Muslims, Islam and Sharia Crap !

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 12:18:59   #
Sicilianthing (suspended)
 
L8erToots wrote:
You asked, "why did the whole world regard the Islamic State as a criminal entity that must be destroyed? Why was it not welcomed into the family of nations, alongside other Sharia regimes including Saudi Arabia and Iran?"
From what I read in "Management of Savagery", they were not "welcomed" because (I'm paraphrasing) they were showing Islam's true colors, plans and punishments too soon - they wanted the Western world to view Islam as a peaceful religion until it was too late. They complained that with each brutal punishment shown to the world to make a statement, the next had to be more brutal (as we saw it was). The other Islamic nations agreed with ISIS in (Islamic) principle, they just did not approve of their impatience and timeline.
A good comparison would be a molester and a rapist; one grooms, the other attacks instantly, but the end result is the same.
For us to think we're safe from Islam because ISIS has been defeated would be a grave mistake.
You asked, "why did the whole world regard th... (show quote)


>>>

Sharia:



| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 12:20:20   #
Sicilianthing (suspended)
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
What I love about Robert Spencer is that he doesn't even try to respect the intelligence of his readers... Simply relies on their fear of Islam to ensure that they won't do any vetting of his work...

Just a small example...Surah 47:4 (the first example given by Spencer in the above article) is a reference to meeting unbelievers in battle... In which case Muslims are instructed to kill them... But only until they are subdued... Then the fighting (and killing) stops...

Now... We might find it barbaric to kill someone in battle, but there are numerous cultures that do just that... I myself would probably go with the whole kill your enemy in battle option if the situation ever arose...

I leave it to you to vet the rest of the article...
What I love about Robert Spencer is that he doesn'... (show quote)


>>>

Fear ?

Here’s Dr. Phil Warner on Fear of Islam:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RELj3NzJK9Y

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 15:56:07   #
Canuckus Deploracus (a regular here)
 
Rose42 wrote:
Is it? This is Surah 47:4.

"47:4. So, when you meet those who disbelieve, smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly. Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity or ransom, until the war lays down its burden. If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost, "

It's killing. Where is it suggested that its meeting unbelievers in battle?
Is it? This is Surah 47:4. br br "47:4. S... (show quote)



"47:4. So, when you meet those who disbelieve, smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly. Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity or ransom, until the war lays down its burden. If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost, "

A reference to war...
Also... In many translations they will make tge notation that the verb used for 'meet' is a verb that refers to meeting in battle...

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 16:24:45   #
Sicilianthing (suspended)
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
"47:4. So, when you meet those who disbelieve, smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly. Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity or ransom, until the war lays down its burden. If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost, "

A reference to war...
Also... In many translations they will make tge notation that the verb used for 'meet' is a verb that refers to meeting in battle...
"47:4. So, when you meet those who disbelieve... (show quote)


>>>

Read the fine print carefully:



| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 17:11:24   #
Rose42 (a regular here)
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
"47:4. So, when you meet those who disbelieve, smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly. Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity or ransom, until the war lays down its burden. If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost, "

A reference to war...
Also... In many translations they will make tge notation that the verb used for 'meet' is a verb that refers to meeting in battle...
"47:4. So, when you meet those who disbelieve... (show quote)


Yes I saw war. And I know apologists say this is referring to battle. But they were not defending themselves they were the aggressors. Just as the Crusades were launched in response to muslim invasion.

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 17:16:02   #
Sicilianthing (suspended)
 
Rose42 wrote:
Yes I saw war. And I know apologists say this is referring to battle. But they were not defending themselves they were the aggressors. Just as the Crusades were launched in response to muslim invasion.


>>>

Here:



| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 18:40:33   #
Canuckus Deploracus (a regular here)
 
Rose42 wrote:
Yes I saw war. And I know apologists say this is referring to battle. But they were not defending themselves they were the aggressors. Just as the Crusades were launched in response to muslim invasion.


Has nothing to do with apologists...
Or the crusades, which came hundreds of years after this was written/spoken...

At times Muslims are/were the aggressors...
All nations and cultures own that action...

My point was that cherry picking lines from verses leads to a lack of understanding...
And is a deceitful practice...

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 20:50:07   #
Rose42 (a regular here)
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Has nothing to do with apologists...
Or the crusades, which came hundreds of years after this was written/spoken...

At times Muslims are/were the aggressors...
All nations and cultures own that action...

My point was that cherry picking lines from verses leads to a lack of understanding...
And is a deceitful practice...


I have read the koran. There is no need to cherry pick to see they don’t worship the same God as Christianity or to show that its not a religion of peace. I’m not for persecuting them because of their beliefs and most just want to live and let live. However as seen with the prophet Mohammed cartoon they can easily be incited to violence and people fell right in line to apologize for it. That never happens with Christianity. They do bear watching moreso than other religions.

The good news is all have a chance to accept Christ as their Savior before they die. It is my hope all do.

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 20:51:57   #
Canuckus Deploracus (a regular here)
 
Rose42 wrote:
I have read the koran. There is no need to cherry pick to see they don’t worship the same God as Christianity or to show that its not a religion of peace. I’m not for persecuting them because of their beliefs and most just want to live and let live. However as seen with the prophet Mohammed cartoon they can easily be incited to violence and people fell right in line to apologize for it. That never happens with Christianity. They do bear watching moreso than other religions.

The good news is all have a chance to accept Christ as their Savior before they die. It is my hope all do.
I have read the koran. There is no need to cherry... (show quote)


Never happens with Christianity?

White lie?

Or were you refering to the lack of defense Christianity receives?

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 20:52:31   #
Sicilianthing (suspended)
 
Rose42 wrote:
I have read the koran. There is no need to cherry pick to see they don’t worship the same God as Christianity or to show that its not a religion of peace. I’m not for persecuting them because of their beliefs and most just want to live and let live. However as seen with the prophet Mohammed cartoon they can easily be incited to violence and people fell right in line to apologize for it. That never happens with Christianity. They do bear watching moreso than other religions.

The good news is all have a chance to accept Christ as their Savior before they die. It is my hope all do.
I have read the koran. There is no need to cherry... (show quote)


>>>

The Koran Tells Muslim Scumbags to Rape our Women and Daughters...



| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.