Jump to content

Barabika

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    513
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Barabika

  1. Its really very easy to pick out certain verses from the Quran, or any book of guidance for that matter, and show it to be a “terrorist sponsoring religion”. The Quran is believed amongst its believers to be a book of guidance in life; Life needs peace, needs forgivness, needs sacrifices but you also need to learn to fight too.So you don’t expect the Quran or any book as such to tell you to always smile in the face of enemies and those causing problems do you? So if a politician betrays his country no one is gonna pat on the back and tell him “its okay, don’t worry about it”!! The list you wrote can also be written for Christian extremists, Jews etc etc. as well ( At first i was going to explain each and every one of those verses but then i thought that will just end up in you bringing more verses like such and it will turn into a tiring and insufficient cycle- so here's my more general idea). Difference is during the last couple of centuries muslims have mainly had weak governments which lacked any foreign power and the rest of what they did was to the benefit of the leaders and not the people. So, in some cases the people took the war in their own hands. But is it only groups like alqaida terrorizing the world with their acts? Or is there other kinds of violence and terrorism too? One answer is foreign “governmental terrorism”. You as an American (eg) might not be a terrorist yourself but you gov. DOES support terrorism; Who founded AlQaida? The US with Pakistani intelligence and Saudi Petrol money. At the same time, The US is taking off the MEK from the terrorist list. MEK or Mujahedin E Khalgh is the same group which killed, or I better say terrorized, many important Iranian politicians in the beginning of the revolution ie. People like Motahari, Beheshti, Rajayi etc. The MEK is the terrorist group responsible for the genocide in the Iraqi Kurdish regions during Saddam’s time. The MEK is also believed to be responsible for various attacks carried out in Iran during the recent years. The MEK had very close relations with the Saddami regime and it was known to be “saddam’s private army” as it served saddam a lot! Back to Iranian history and when the Iranians democratically chose their first ever prime minister, mossadegh, he was ousted of power in a CIA backed coup. And that’s just the beginning of the interferences and the screw ups Britain and America imposed on Islamic countries. See the difference is, Muslims lack capable politians. The west on the hand has politions who support and literally create terrorist groups or terrorise in a very secretive matter like those examples I gave you. In response to those specific aya’s you chose out from the holy quran: In religious studies one thing which is studied about an aya is When was it revealed and Why? Many of these aya’s are actually pointing out to specific things which happened in its time but were reveled in a general language so it could also be a guide for the later muslims. For instance an Aya came down about a group of hypocrites who were secretly plotting against the religion and the nation of muslims at that time. An aya comes down telling muhammed to show them the other face and crack them down. Now that seems legit, but when it comes as a general aya telling to fight against hypocrites it suddenly becomes violence? Here is a list of some of the peaceful aya’s in islam, mostly those which are about tolerating other kinds of thought and religion: And finally an article from the times magazine about this: To ShiaChatters: I hope its good enough :/
  2. Well then kindly link me to an answer please. Im not sure if i get what your saying but if im right i suspect you're saying there is a reason to each of the verses. I took a look at a tafseer i have for one of the aya's and didnt find anything suitable. Also, if im to go around and find a reason for each aya, the only thing that the OP would do is just bring more aya's and this will turn into a tiring circle of him bringing aya's and me searching for an answer.
  3. Quick Look at the Quran and What the Muslim Believes As read on other forum: As for thne whole people who believe in the basic tenets of the Muslim religio... well, that is hardly an argument against them preaching extremists views of hate against any religion that is not their own. Demonstrated Beliefs: Qur'an 9:73 wrote: Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is their destination. Qur'an 3.32 wrote: Obey Allah and His Messenger": But if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith. al-Kawthar 108:3 wrote: For he who hates you 'Muhammad' he will be cut off (from posterity and every good thing in this world and in the Hereafter Aal ‘Imraan 3:85 wrote: And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers al-Noor 24:11 wrote: Concerning the incident of the slander (al-ifk) – which is well known – Allaah says: Consider it not a bad thing for you. Nay, it is good for you. Unto every man among them will be paid that which he had earned of the sin, and as for him among them who had the greater share therein, his will be a great torment Aal ‘Imraan 3:118 wrote: Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse Aal ‘Imraan 3:120 wrote: But if you remain patient and become Al-Muttaqoon (the pious), not the least harm will their cunning do to you Qur'an 4:74 wrote: Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward. Qur'an 2:207 wrote: And there is the type of man who gives his life to earn the pleasure of Allah... Bukhari 52:54 wrote: The words of Muhammad: "I would love to be martyred in Al1ah's Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred. Qur'an 2:191-193 wrote: And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. Qur'an 2:216 wrote: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not. Qur'an 4:89 wrote: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. Qur'an 4:104 wrote: And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain... Qur'an 5:33 wrote: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement Qur'an 8:12 wrote: I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them Qur'an 8:39) wrote: And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah This type of thinking is throughout the Qur'an and the number of such quotes is so VAST that there would be pages and pages of them if they were all listed. Is there another religious group on earth who's beliefs foster such violence? How can this be explained?
  4. Barabika

    The Lol Topic

    While driving he got trolled... Before and After School Finally, Spiderman meets his end What a genius
  5. Barabika

    The Lol Topic

    Yeah you did this when you were a child:
  6. big brother. . . . i mean: game killer :P
  7. I keep looking for news on the Baghdad summit but i havent found anything. I've heard that the baghdad summit hasnt gone as good as expected and hopes are now on Moscow. Also, why wont Iran or the US etc. or any of the other five countries host it? Is it because in that case it would need a meeting between the presidents then?
  8. It would be nice if you could add an explanation or a tafseer next to the translation too. Thankyou :) Jazakomollah
  9. Gotta mention that its an interesting read, i didnt just copy it for no reason. :)
  10. The Arrogance of Power Posted By Stephen M. Walt Will the U.S. and the rest of the P5+1 manage to turn a potential diplomatic breakthrough with Iran into another counterproductive failure? It's too soon to tell, but betting on failure has been the smart wager in the past. The Baghdad talks between Iran and the P5+1 apparently got a lot of serious issues on the table, but didn't achieve a breakthrough, let alone an agreement. The main reason is the hardline position adopted by the United States and its partners, and especially our refusal to grant any sort of sanctions relief. The parties will resume discussions in Moscow in June. From a purely strategic point of view, this situation is pretty simple. Iran is not going to give up its right to enrich uranium. Period. If the West insists on a full suspension, there won't be a deal. It's that simple. At the same time, the U.S. and the rest of the P5+1 would like to maximize the amount of time it would take Iran to "break out" and assemble a weapon. The best way to do that is to limit Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium to concentrations of less than 5 percent. If Iran insists on keeping a large supply of 20 percent enriched uranium on hand, we'll walk too. So there you have the outline of the deal--we accept low-level enrichment and lift sanctions, and Iran gives up the 20% stuff--although there are other details what will have to be worked out too. Frankly, given where we are today, it's surprising the U.S. isn't grabbing that deal with both hands. Why? Because unless the U.S. is willing to invade and occupy Iran (and we aren't) or unless we are willing to bomb its facilities over and over (i.e., every time Iran rebuilds them), there is no way to prevent Iran from having the potential to obtain nuclear weapons if it decides it wants to. They know how to build centrifuges, folks, and the rest of the technology isn't that hard to master. So the potential is there, and there's no realistic way to eliminate it. The smart strategy, therefore, is to keep them as far away from the bomb as possible, and to reduce Iran's incentive to go all the way to an actual weapon. And the best way to do that -- duh! -- is to take the threat of military force off the table and to stop babbling about the need for regime change. Also bear in mind that Iran's leaders have repeatedly said they don't want to build a bomb, and Supreme Leader Ali Khameini has repeatedly declared nuclear weapons to be "haram" -- forbidden by Islam. Maybe that's just empty or deceitful talk, but violating a statement like that is a tricky move for a theocratic regime. And maybe he's saying exactly what he really thinks. While we're being realistic, let's keep a few other bedrock realities in mind. Right now, the United States has thousands of sophisticated nuclear weapons in its arsenal. Israel has a couple of hundred. Four other members of the P5+1 have nuclear weapons as well, and the fifth member -- Germany -- has had access to nuclear weapons through "dual key" arrangements with the United States. Right now, the United States is far and away the world's greatest military power, with no enemies nearby. Israel is the strongest military power in the Middle East. We spend close to a trillion dollars on various national security programs each year; Iran spends maybe $15 billion, tops. Iran is a minor military threat at best. Right now, the United States and Israel are actively engaged in a variety of covert actions directed against Iran, and the United States still have military forces and bases all around that country. Top U.S. officials, Senators and Congressmen have openly called for "regime change" in Iran. And then we wonder why, oh why, Iran might be wary of us, and why some Iranians might think that having an effective deterrent to counter our vast military superiority might be a good idea. Right now, the United States and its allies have imposed increasingly punishing economic sanctions against Iran. Iran has no way to retaliate in kind, no matter how its leaders may bluster about oil and gas embargoes. Since World War II, the United States has fought at least eight wars (Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Iraq War I, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Gulf War II), and we've intervened in other countries countless times. Israel has fought at least six wars since independence (the 1956 Suez War, 1967 Six Day War, 1969-70 War of Attrition, 1973 October War, 1982 invasion of Lebanon, and 2006 war in Lebanon), and it started the wars in 1956, 1967, 1982, and 2006. It has also conducted innumerable cross-border raids and covert actions. Iran has fought one war during that same period -- against Iraq -- and only because Saddam Hussein attacked. It has also provided material support to groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, but its overseas activities are paltry compared with ours. Yet it is these two comparatively powerful and nuclear-armed nations are insisting that Iran cannot under any circumstances have its own nuclear weapons -- which Iran has repeatedly said it does not seek -- and Israel's leaders are declaring that Iran must give up even the potential to acquire them. I have no trouble understanding why the P5+1 and Israel might prefer such a world, but what I don't understand is why they think Iran will ever agree to it. I mean, I'd like to live in a world where anyone making more than a $1 million per year had to send me ten percent of their income, but it would be foolish for me to plan my life on that basis. For the past decade, the US and its allies have been insisting that Iran suspend enrichment. Back when we started making that demand (in 2001 or so), Iran had no centrifuges in operation. We've continued to issue these ultimatums for more than a decade, and Iran now has thousands of centrifuges in operation and a stockpile of enriched uranium that we're now trying to get them to give up. In short, our take-it-or-leave-it approach to this problem has been a complete failure, and you'd think those in charge of U.S. policy would have recognized this by now. As I noted awhile back, the current impasse reflects a significant shift in our approach to arms control. In the past, we understood that arms control was a diplomatic process of mutual compromise, designed to produce a situation that was ultimately better for both sides. Arms control agreements didn't get the participants everything they might want, but they worked if each side understood that they'd be better off striking a reasonable deal. Today, "arms control" consists of our making unilateral demands, and insisting that other side give us what we want before we'll seriously consider what they want. It reflects what late Senator J. William Fulbright called the "arrogance of power," the tendency for powerful states to think they can dictate to others with near-impunity. This approach hasn't worked yet with Iran, and it's not likely to work in the future. So why do we persist in such a dubious course of action? Gareth Porter has a pretty good idea. walt.foreignpolicy.com
  11. A pictorial explanation:
  12. I just hope this doesnt fail. We dont want a war.
  13. Geez thats such great news :dry: I hope it turns out to be a lie :dry:
  14. (bismillah) (salam) Should have posted this in the media forum and would have done so if i could. In the 37th part of the arrivals, The Sun God, the documentary shows a part of a well known film about jesus where he mentions Allah. The film is in latin but has english subtitles. Can anyone tell me the name of that film. I believe it to be a well known film which was produced some years ago and named the jews as the murders of jesus. Jesus mentions "Allah's" name clearly after telling about a man who would come in the future and explain about Allah. The film was only on american cinema for a very short while (less than a week i remember) and then brought down due to complaints. Thanks in advance :)
×
×
  • Create New...