Bad shit going down in Brussels

[Jairzinho]

The method of killing always seems to hold more significance than it deserves.

[Rico1304]

Well since the koran is clear that suicide is forbidden, you might have a problem there.

 

Suicide is clearly forbidden in Islam, but what apologists often fail to mention is that the permissibility of martyrdom operations (Istishhad) is an altogether different topic, with scholars being split on the issue. Notable scholars and apologists such as Shaykh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the world's most quoted independent Islamic jurist, Dr. Zakir Naik, known for his advocacy of "Qur'anic science", and Tahir Ashrafi, the Chairman of the All Pakistan Ulema Council, have justified the use of suicide bombing in Islam. Opinion polls have further shown that an extremely large number of Muslims from around the world support the practice.

From the synopsis of an in-depth fatwa on the subject: "We have arrived at the conclusion that martyrdom operations are permissible, and in fact the Mujahid who is killed in them is better than one who is killed fighting in the ranks, for there are gradations even among martyrs, corresponding to their role, action effort and risk undertaken. Then, we explained how martyrdom operations are the least costly to the Mujahideen and most detrimental to the enemy. We have heard, as you must have, that most scholars today permit such operations; at least 30 Fatawa have been issued to this effect. We explained how this issue is derived from the issue of plunging single-handedly into the enemy ranks; something which is praiseworthy by the agreement of jurists. We then further stated that we preferred the view that such an action is permissible even if martyrdom is the only goal, although it is certainly not the optimal practice."

[dennis tooth]

Debatable about whether suicide bombers qualify as the "suicide" meant in the Quran or if they are more like soldiers.

No. Its not. Its quite clearly expressed.

[Rico1304]

No for saying its the fault of a religion, that bigotted and clearly false.

Books arent responsible for anyones actions, if a religion is to blame then you cant convict anyone in a court of law on grounds of diminished responsibility. Thats a problem with your claim.

Is that how you got off?

 

As long as he got some cash though.

[skend04]

Or it could be the other way round. ISIS etc could be the people who follow the religion to the letter (ie true Muslims) where as the moderates are those who ignore the evil parts. But then if you're ignoring parts of your religion then does that mean you're a true Muslim? There's no definitive answer to that, you'll have to form a reasonable opinion based on what you think Islam teaches and what Muslims actually do.

 

For example as I said earlier, it is generally accepted by Sunni scholars that music should not be listened to - yet how many "muslims" listen to music? How many Muslims drink alcohol? How many Muslims have sex before marriage? etc etc

Forgot to add 'some' before Sunni scholars.

[Naz17]

If its why they do it, then how are they responsible?

 

You realise you are making excuses for terrorism here?

 

I mean, if a bolt of lightening comes down and shoots through me and thats why I have a heart attack, is not the lightening bolt responsible for my heart attack?

 

Cause and effect Dennis. It occurs in every walk of life - it doesn't excuse anything but explains human behaviour. If I were to give a reason for why someone kills someone else it doesn't excuse it - it gives the rationale. The "motive" - as they say in criminal cases. But the killer is always responsible.

[Naz17]

Forgot to add 'some' before Sunni scholars.

 

True - good shout.

[moof]

Or it could be the other way round. ISIS etc could be the people who follow the religion to the letter (ie true Muslims) where as the moderates are those who ignore the evil parts. But then if you're ignoring parts of your religion then does that mean you're a true Muslim? There's no definitive answer to that, you'll have to form a reasonable opinion based on what you think Islam teaches and what Muslims actually do.

 

For example as I said earlier, it is generally accepted by Sunni scholars that music should not be listened to - yet how many "muslims" listen to music? How many Muslims drink alcohol? How many Muslims have sex before marriage? etc etc

Your perception of religion and what it means to billions of people around the world is absolutely warped.

[dennis tooth]

Suicide is clearly forbidden in Islam, but what apologists often fail to mention is that the permissibility of martyrdom operations (Istishhad) is an altogether different topic, with scholars being split on the issue. Notable scholars and apologists such as Shaykh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the world's most quoted independent Islamic jurist, Dr. Zakir Naik, known for his advocacy of "Qur'anic science", and Tahir Ashrafi, the Chairman of the All Pakistan Ulema Council, have justified the use of suicide bombing in Islam. Opinion polls have further shown that an extremely large number of Muslims from around the world support the practice.

From the synopsis of an in-depth fatwa on the subject: "We have arrived at the conclusion that martyrdom operations are permissible, and in fact the Mujahid who is killed in them is better than one who is killed fighting in the ranks, for there are gradations even among martyrs, corresponding to their role, action effort and risk undertaken. Then, we explained how martyrdom operations are the least costly to the Mujahideen and most detrimental to the enemy. We have heard, as you must have, that most scholars today permit such operations; at least 30 Fatawa have been issued to this effect. We explained how this issue is derived from the issue of plunging single-handedly into the enemy ranks; something which is praiseworthy by the agreement of jurists. We then further stated that we preferred the view that such an action is permissible even if martyrdom is the only goal, although it is certainly not the optimal practice."

Not in the koran.

So You can reel off a load of people saying different things Its not remotely relevant. The koran couldnt be more clear on the subject.

 

Lets say though, for your own mongy arguments sake, and Im being generous here, Im giving it away its a dennis tooth free give away bonanza, im must be bonkers krazy, that theres a verse in the koran that says, 'kill loads of people indiscriminantly for a laugh, be evil'.

Would that, mean the religion is to blame? On any level?

[Naz17]

Your perception of religion and what it means to billions of people around the world is absolutely warped.

 

Interested to know exactly what you mean by that especially as I'm religious myself.

[moof]

Interested to know exactly what you mean by that especially as I'm religious myself.

What religion do you follow? Why aren't you going around killing people?

[dennis tooth]

Is that how you got off?

As long as he got some cash though.

No Id have got off even if I had killed him, which brings me directly back into this conversation, the reason is in law, there must be intent.

You cant convict without intention.

I no, im mad he got some cash out of it, I had hoped he wouldnt be able to work again, really he shouldnt have got a payout.

[dennis tooth]

Cause and effect Dennis. It occurs in every walk of life - it doesn't excuse anything but explains human behaviour. If I were to give a reason for why someone kills someone else it doesn't excuse it - it gives the rationale. The "motive" - as they say in criminal cases. But the killer is always responsible.

'On grounds of diminished responsibility' more google for you.

Nope you have to have intent, motive and presence of mind, to be found guilty or its manslaughter, what you are saying is that the religion, islam, or the koran possibly, its unclear, is responsible.

 

Thats the point you are making which means the ones pulling the trigger must be innocent.

[Rico1304]

'On grounds of diminished responsibility' more google for you.

Nope you have to have intent, motive and presence of mind, to be found guilty or its manslaughter, what you are saying is that the religion, islam, or the koran possibly, its unclear, is responsible.

Thats the point you are making which means the ones pulling the trigger must be innocent.

No you don't, well I think you don't. Anubis!

 

If I get a gun, walk to my front door and fire it down the street I may have no intent to kill but my actions are so reckless and the outcome so likely I'd be a murderer.

 

Happy to be proved wrong by someone who knows.

[dennis tooth]

I see youve negged my passionately rico.

Particularly enjoyed my easter negs.

[Rico1304]

Not in the koran.

So You can reel off a load of people saying different things Its not remotely relevant. The koran couldnt be more clear on the subject.

Lets say though, for your own mongy arguments sake, and Im being generous here, Im giving it away its a dennis tooth free give away bonanza, im must be bonkers krazy, that theres a verse in the koran that says, 'kill loads of people indiscriminantly for a laugh, be evil'.

Would that, mean the religion is to blame? On any level?

Ha ha you're the scholar no Den, it's fucking lovely watching you contort in this thread. It's like that woman who could fit herself into the jar.

[dennis tooth]

No you don't, well I think you don't. Anubis!

If I get a gun, walk to my front door and fire it down the street I may have no intent to kill but my actions are so reckless and the outcome so likely I'd be a murderer.

Happy to be proved wrong by someone who knows.

No, no, it depends what book you quoted when you pulled the trigger. Then the books gonna stand trial and you get off, in your world.

 

Bet youd like to throw muslims off buildings wouldnt you?

[dennis tooth]

Ha ha you're the scholar no Den, it's fucking lovely watching you contort in this thread. It's like that woman who could fit herself into the jar.

Ive been pretty consistent, its you who have flitted with half arguments, half justifications, and semi colons. Usually you make a point, its gets refuted, you go quiet then pop up sayin the same shit a few days later.

[Denny Crane]

It's a really weak argument; there are texts in a book and less than what 0.000001 of folk take that said text literally if that many at all.

 

The ones that tend to carry out the actions out are often petty criminals or have a history of mental health issues and are not actually religious in most cases.

 

This outlier is then said to be potentially representative of said religion.

 

So to resolve this a suggestion put forward is rewrite that book; sounds fundamentally flawed to me.

[moof]

Dennis trooth

[Section_31]

It's a really weak argument; there are texts in a book and less than what 0.000001 of folk take that said text literally if that many at all.

 

The ones that tend to carry out the actions out are often petty criminals or have a history of mental health issues and are not actually religious in most cases.

 

This outlier is then said to be potentially representative of said religion.

 

So to resolve this a suggestion put forward is rewrite that book; sounds fundamentally flawed to me.

What about Richard Reid the shoe bomber though? He was a picture of mental health. The ISIS high command too, former Iraqi Army top brass we sent to the dole queue, scholars of Islam one and all.

 

[Rico1304]

Ive been pretty consistent, its you who have flitted with half arguments, half justifications, and semi colons. Usually you make a point, its gets refuted, you go quiet then pop up sayin the same shit a few days later.

Ha ha ha you are consistent in that you keep saying the same thing, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Like a dog running at a gate with a stick in its mouth.

[dennis tooth]

Its like this rico, and Im not into religion, if I give you a recipe to make ice cream and you dont follow it and put poison in, then set up at the fair, its not my fault or that of my recipe when the kids start dying.

The 9/11 attackers were drunk and high in a strip club the night before, they could have claimed to be representatives of disney and it wouldnt have mattered, theyre still criminals.

[Naz17]

'On grounds of diminished responsibility' more google for you.

Nope you have to have intent, motive and presence of mind, to be found guilty or its manslaughter, what you are saying is that the religion, islam, or the koran possibly, its unclear, is responsible.

 

Thats the point you are making which means the ones pulling the trigger must be innocent.

 

You don't get it. Don't worry.

[Naz17]

What religion do you follow? Why aren't you going around killing people?

 

Coz i'm not bat shit crazy.