Muslims lie

[Arsalan]

:wtf:

I posted:

Thanks, I'm flattered
Will prolly be this weekend or something. My super-laziness turned into mega-laziness cos of the holiday I need to get myself in gear. What I can tell at this moment though is that verse 3:28 has nothing to do with what Q is trying to accuse the Quran of. An Anti-Islamist shoots himself in the foot, again, what a surprise

You replied:

WOW! When you sink your teeth into something, you really go all out!

While quoting me as:

Originally Posted by Arsalan
Ooooohh Something to get my teeth in later on.

and:

Originally Posted by Arsalan
What I can tell at this moment though is that verse 3:28 has nothing to do with what Q is trying to accuse the Quran of.

in this post.

You intentionally, because you knew I said it would probably be this weekend, quoted half of what I said in an effort to make it look like that was my reply to the allegations you and MW made.
So yeah, if you want to play the beacon of truth, be honest and fair when quoting another person.

What does that means exactly when you say, "revealed?" Who revealed it? To whom was it revealed? Why during that time, exactly?

Oh my, what a nice turn you took there!

Who exactly decides what constitutes "the interests and safety of other Muslim states" and what are those interests? Are the interests based on Islam?

Yay, another! This one courtesy of the very first perception identified by the Runymede trust regarding Islamophobia (An ideology rife on anti-Islamist websites and in anti-Islamist publication), namely that Muslims cannot think for themselves, they need everything written down, otherwise, they, as a static and unresponsive bloc, will not be able to engage in any intellectual process to determine what needs to be done in any given situation. Basically, Muslims are too stupid to think for themselves. This question of yours is also the reason that not any “Average Joe” can become a political and or world leader or Lawmaker.

Who exactly decides what is considered "harm" to Muslims and Muslim states? Is that also based on Islam? Or, an interpretation of Islam?
Is there any way someone could contrive any reason they wanted based on interpretation?

W00t! Another

Again, who decides what is a plot or machination? Based on what criteria and interpretation?

I hope this is the final one as it’s getting boring...

And you have presented it as if the reader were thinking one dimensionally. To not see the clear and wide open opportunity to exploit and take advantage of such logic is blind. It could manifest itself into intolerance, whereupon Muslims might call for the death of a cartoonist or a film maker, for example. Harm, indeed.

Wide open?!! What the... The verse specifically mentions that it's regarding one's faith, one's religion! Nothing else!

Ok, so let me get this straight. You are saying that because a verse says not to form any treaties or alliances with another country that might harm any Muslim State, that would lead to people calling for the death of cartoonists? Wow, that’s one of the most cockamamie and irrational conclusions I’ve ever read, kudos for that btw. Let me make this clear here once and for all: nowhere does this verse give license to calling for the death of anyone. Nowhere. No Arabic idiom will ever support what you are saying. No translation of the verse will ever support what you are saying. It is a quite simple verse regarding the forming of treaties and alliances with non-Muslim states. The simple fact that you see this verse to mean what you have just said, proves, once again, your mindset when it comes to Islam, and it begins with “anti”.

Would your use of the term, "anti-Islamic" have anything to do with the verses quoted? In other words, have you, in Muhammad's wisdom, decided for a fact that article will do harm to Muslims and the Muslim state, and are declaring it so? Is that the type of decision making process that goes into this logic?

I don’t know what Muslim state you are talking about but: yes and no. There wasn’t any need for me to use the Prophet’s wisdom. I have my own “wisdom” thank you very much. I call those websites anti-Islamist websites for the same reason I call the BNP website a racist and anti-Semitic website. For the same reason I call Stor.... (I can say that here can I?) a racist and anti-Semitic website. For the same reason I call everything the Nazis wrote on the Jews anti-Semitic. For the same reason I call the House of Saud unIslamic. If you still don’t get why, it’s because the creators of those websites and or articles and the content regularly posted on it contains extreme bias, misquotation, twisting whatever is said out of context and the regular and incredible bile spewed by the members of those sites. That is the reason.

So, you have now decided I'm an "anti-Islamic liar?" You have been and are continuing to do that which has been pointed out and is the main theme for the exploitation of this doctrine. YOU have taken it upon yourself to make a decision that I am harming Muslims and the Muslim state, hence you are now free to act upon that declaration.

First of all, the reason you are an anti-Islamist liar is because you copy and paste whatever is posted on anti-Islamist websites and then shout on here “Look! This is the true Islam!” Figuratively speaking, of course.

Secondly, “the main theme for the exploitation of this doctrine”? What does me calling you a biased anti-Islamist liar have to do with the verse in question? I thought the verse was only talking about lying, as you seemed to proclaim? What declaration for what Muslim state are you talking about? And how am I acting upon that “declaration”?

And thirdly, there is no need for me to make a declaration, which wouldn’t be worth anything anyway since people in this thread can see that you are the one thinking one dimensionally by rejecting any other interpretation given on the verse. In fact, you’re not even thinking. You’re just copy-and-pasting. And you can take of the tin hat: I’m not talking for any Muslim state.

What is so hypocritical of your logic is that you yourself have based this logic on interpretation. Yet, whenever anyone else has a different interpretation, it can be seen as harm.

Wow, right back at you, pal. You are willing to accept and defend a specious exegesis from anti-Islamist websites of these verses yet your mind is closed to what the Muslims on here have to say. Harm? It’s the same as me claiming that the BNP are racist. Are their views harmful? Of course. When they spout racist bullshit, I call them on it and call them racist. When you spout anti-Islamist lies, which aren’t even yours btw, I call you an anti-Islamist liar.

And stop trying to link me with any Muslim state, I am not entering into any political treaty with you for the foreseeable future since I don’t have that kind of power, so you can drop that label. Neither you nor I represent any state on any political level.

Or, perhaps its simply an interpretation which YOU agree.

If the blackboard says 1+2 I don’t interpret that as 12, trees, clouds or the meaning of life.

Btw, have you noticed I haven't declared you're "anti" anything?

Because I have not given you any reason to. I have not posted biased and one dimensional information from a hate website, you have. But you have called me a liar and an ass. Or, you will...

Yes, that point has been refuted for two simple reasons.
1) The logic is based on paradoxes, hence has no credibility, since no claim is valid if it is based entirely on conditions that have no logical alternatives.
2) God would already take into consideration reason #1, especially since he already knows those people are being tortured.

Let me get this straight: according to you the paradox is that God already knows that people are being tortured and therefore he should not have to specifically command that these people can be forgiven? If that’s what you’re saying then that’s all fine and dandy, but what you seem to be missing, if that is what you’re saying, is that this is not a commandment and it is not directed to God. Like many other things in the Quran, this verse just states something instead of commanding it. God knows that a person is being tortured, but does that person know that God will forgive him for anything said during torture? After all, that is the reason this verse was revealed. It was revealed after a certain Ammar Ibn Yasir was being tortured and faced death and said bad things about the Prophet. After he was released he went to the Prophet and asked whether there would be any punishment from God as he was not in control. The Prophet said there is no reason to worry about anything said under torture. But of course, you wouldn’t know that. So, even though God knows that a person is being tortured and forgives him or her, that person might not know whether God will forgive him. This verse therefore just states that people under torture should not worry about punishment from God.

What other hypocritical, one-dimensional scenarios will you offer?

Certainly no more than you

Ah yes, the typical strawman claim of knowledge, when the knowledge is little more than ones interpretations. Hilarious.

Strawman? A strawman implies that what I have stated regarding you is wrong. It is not wrong. My knowledge about Islam exceeds yours. That’s not a strawman, that’s a fact. Whereas you need to resort to copy-and-pasting snippets from anti-Islam websites, I read almost any book on Islam I can get my hands on, think and ponder various issues. I know about the history of the vast majority of verses. I know the Hadith that go with them. Do you? No.

Oh, I see the similarities, all right. I also see the opportunity to exploit duress every bit of how I see the opportunity to exploit your logic. In fact, you have already exploited that logic within your post by declaring me 'anit-Islamic.'

Ah, so if you see every opportunity to exploit duress, make a topic on it and demand that the law be changed in your own country because it condones and promotes lying. After all, you’re not just going to focus on Islam, right? You know, if you want to be seen as an objective person, stop copying from anti-Islamist websites and start topics on duress. Better yet, start that topic on a law forum. Let’s see how far you get. This is once again proof of your lack of knowledge which you have continued to exhibit throughout your posts. If you had any knowledge regarding duress, you would know the cases that mattered, you would know the strict guidelines set by the precedents, you would know that it would be nigh impossible to lie or commit any crime just for the heck of it and then claim duress.

Yes, those are wonderful paradoxes you've created. Are you stating that those are the types of things Muslims would do to one another? Why would you do those things? And, why would a god know you are going to do such things such that he has to provide a clause?

What paradoxes? The one I mentioned previously? And no, it isn’t a clause. It’s just a statement to put at ease the minds of anyone who has been tortured and made derogatory remarks.

Did your god not create us all? Did he therefore create the concept of torturing one another?

It’s called free will. Humans can do what they want. If they do bad, eventually they will be punished. And, a nice use of an erubescent ichtyoid btw.

As you can see, it's very easy to turn your argument back at you, when your argument is one-dimensional. From your position of blind faith in a god, you overlook and ignore the contradictions that lead to your contrived paradoxes.

What contradictions and paradoxes?

That is, of course, unless your argument is centered entirely around non-Muslims? Is it?

Why would a Muslim torture another Muslim to get him to say that Allah isn’t real or the Prophet isn’t a real Prophet?

You ass. Duress was encapsulated into Roman Law hundreds of years before Muhammad.

Compulsion is mentioned in Ciceronian texts as edicts by a Preator yes, but I said law regarding duress and torture. The Romans used torture to get their prisoners to confess to whatever they wanted. That was a widespread practice until very recently. And it is returning thanks to Dubya. Just a note, now you’ve called me a liar and an ass.

You have just formalized a declaration of harm to Muslims and the Muslim state.

I don’t represent any Muslim state therefore you’re assumption is wrong.

It doesn't matter in the least that YOUR interpretations might differ from me or anyone else, including your own brethren.

Go ahead, ask the Muslims on here whether this verse commands outright lying everywhere as you say or whether it says that anything a person says regarding his or her religion during torture and fear of death, torture and duress, cannot and should not be held against him or her and that person should not be punished. Also ask the people whether forgiving someone who is being tortured is morally and ethically reprehensible or a show of mercy.

But, you have made it nonetheless. And, now that you've made the declaration, you're now justified to take whatever action you deem necessary.

Oh? Am I? Tell me, supported by Quranic verses, what actions I am allowed to take against anyone who posts on a forum and who I don’t agree with? You like to see whatever Muslims say as some kind of declaration of war and enmity on behalf of the whole Ummah, while the Muslims merely see it as a disagreement with your methods and arguments., nothing more. Once again, the very first perception identified by the Runymede trust regarding Islamophobia shows its face.

Thank you for demonstrating the points made.

You haven’t made any points. All you’ve done is copy-and-paste and when provided with evidence to the contrary, you have gone around in circles trying to find paradoxes that aren’t there with the help of some lovely fish.

No, you haven't. In fact, you demonstrate it.

Where have I lied?

Because, the thread is about Islam. Duh.

Then, if you want to show you are objective, start threads on Rahab, the lying spirit, shalom bayit, casuistry, pikuach nefesh, baba kamma 113 and duress. But we know you won’t. Why? Because that isn’t part of your agenda, neither do you possess any knowledge regarding those subjects. That is why you’re response to those was a simple “that’s not Islam, duh”. That says it all, really.

Well, one need only click Sam's profile and will find tens of thousands of posts filled with that which you yourself have demonstrated here. I know you won't see that, no one other than non-Muslims can see that. You will no more agree with that than agreeing with the conclusion that your god is figment of imagination.

I have seen a lot of SAMs posts, and since you acknowledge that I am too biased to recognise what you are saying, I suggest you post the evidence here, then we can all go over it.

A rebuttal was hardly necessary at all, you demonstrated the points you so miserably tried to argue.

It’s not that it was hardly necessary; it’s that you don’t have any. Because to provide a rebuttal you would have to attack canon and regulations you know nothing about yet which form an essential part of the law in the West.

Now, let's look at a link that was "sanctified" by Sam.
*If I could get the Mormon Tabernacle Choir to sing "Hallelujah" at this point, I would.*
The basic rule with regard to lying is that it is not permitted, but there are certain circumstances in which Islam permits lying to serve a greater purpose or to prevent harm.
One of these situations is when a person mediates between two disputing parties in order to reconcile between them, if reconciliation cannot be achieved in any other way.
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/2424/lying
In other words, even when someone cannot agree with someone else, like for example you and me, then it is promoted to lie in order to achieve a conciliation. Truth be damned, no matter what the repercussions. lying is the preferred and accepted alternative.
That, of course, is morally and ethically reprehensible, and is so wide open for exploitation, of which I suspect your next post will be brimming.

You'll have to excuse me but anything written by that moron Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid is not worth the paper it’s written on (Or typed in this case), to me at least. He is the Saudi equivalent of Jerry Falwell or Jim Phelps. If you want to trust a man like that, go ahead. Although there are some things on that page I would like to look at.

Firstly, let’s look at all that you didn’t quote:

Lying is one of the major elements of corruption in human society, and the cause of the destruction of social structure and ties, one of the most evil features of bad conduct, and causes widespread harm.

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“O you who believe! Be afraid of Allaah, and be with those who are true (in word and deeds).” [al-Tawbah 9:119]

‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘You must be truthful, for truthfulness leads to righteousness and righteousness leads to Paradise. A man will keep speaking the truth and striving to speak the truth until he will be recorded with Allaah as a siddeeq (speaker of the truth). Beware of telling lies, for lying leads to immorality and immorality leads to Hellfire. A man will keep telling lies and striving to tell lies until he is recorded with Allaah as a liar.” (Reported by Muslim, 4721)

Hakeem ibn Hizaam (may Allaah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Two parties to a deal have the option of changing their minds until they part; if they are open and honest, their deal will be blessed, and if they conceal and tell lies, the blessing of their deal will be diminished.” (Reported by al-Bukhaari, 4/275 and Muslim, 1532.)

Truthfulness includes being truthful towards Allaah by worshipping Him sincerely; being truthful towards one’s own soul by making it adhere to the laws of Allaah; and being truthful with people in one's words and by keeping one's promises, and in dealings such as buying, selling and marriage, so there should be no deceiving, cheating, falsifying or withholding of information.

As regards lying, it is highly forbidden, and is of varying degrees of abhorrence and sin.

Funny that. You quoted the last small part while ignoring the tonne of text before it condemning lying and liars. I wonder why that is? Now, as for the last part of the text, let’s talk about the Hadith he and you mentioned. These Hadith are part of an old lie fabricated against Islam. What is never said when these Hadith are drummed up, is what preceded these. Let me quote a partially and crudely translated Hadith which preceded these:

Narrated Abu Huraira: Abraham did not tell a lie except on three occasion. Twice for the Sake of Allah when he said, "I am sick," and he said, "(I have not done this but) the big idol has done it." The (third was) that while Abraham and Sarah (his wife) were going (on a journey) they passed by (the territory of) a tyrant. Someone said to the tyrant, "This man (i.e. Abraham) is accompanied by a very charming lady." So, he sent for Abraham and asked him about Sarah saying, "Who is this lady?" Abraham said, "She is my sister." Abraham went to Sarah and said, "O Sarah! There are no believers on the surface of the earth except you and I. This man asked me about you and I have told him that you are my sister, so don't contradict my statement." The tyrant then called Sarah and when she went to him, he tried to take hold of her with his hand, but (his hand got stiff and) he was confounded. He asked Sarah. "Pray to Allah for me, and I shall not harm you." So Sarah asked Allah to cure him and he got cured. He tried to take hold of her for the second time, but (his hand got as stiff as or stiffer than before and) was more confounded. He again requested Sarah, "Pray to Allah for me, and I will not harm you." Sarah asked Allah again and he became alright. He then called one of his guards (who had brought her) and said, "You have not brought me a human being but have brought me a devil." The tyrant then gave Hajar as a girl-servant to Sarah. Sarah came back (to Abraham) while he was praying. Abraham, gesturing with his hand, asked, "What has happened?" She replied, "Allah has spoiled the evil plot of the infidel (or immoral person) and gave me Hajar for service." (Abu Huraira then addressed his listeners saying, "That (Hajar) was your mother, O Bani Ma-is-Sama (i.e. the Arabs, the descendants of Ishmael, Hajar's son)." (Sahih Bukhari 55- 578)

It’s a big Hadith and it tells the story of when Abraham told a lie. This is a partially and crudely translated version. Nowhere does this Hadith command lying. It simply states that Abraham lied 3 times. Yet, the Hadith that followed this one are from people that heard this Hadith and assumed that the Prophet was telling Muslims when to lie, when in fact all he was doing was telling people a story regarding Abraham and what he did. The Quran specifically forbids lying, therefore it is incredulous to assume that the Prophet, knowing the Quran, would command his followers to lie or that he would not be asked by anyone about why he is saying things which are contrary to Quranic teaching in regards to lying. Anyway, time passed on and the Hadith became truncated and truncated and in the end totally left out the story of Abraham and assumed that the Prophet wanted his followers to follow Abraham’s conduct and not his own. This is, in short, the history of that Hadith. Did you know this? Or is this another example of my knowledge about Islam exceeding yours?

You see, you are not interested in a fair representation of what is said here. This verse quite clearly states that it is about ones confession about ones faith. And even then does this verse not allow anyone to lie. Yet, people like you, anti-Islamists, do not see that, rather, you go around quoting each other and then applying your own interpretation to what this means. Somehow, people like you see this verse to mean that it’s ok to lie to non-Muslims about everything. Where does this verse allow that? And surely that article you quoted quotes the Quran as condemning liars and dishonest people? This is just another tactic used by anti-Islamists: take something that is specifically about one subject, i.e. faith, twist it so that it conforms to what your sick mind wants to see and then claim that this applies to everything and not just the specific subject at hand.

Now, let’s take a look at another interesting subject: false confessions. According to you, people who are coerced into false confessions should be (1) labelled liars and (2) punished because of their confession. Let’s look at what happens in the real world. I’ll once again turn to Wiki so you can’t accuse me of making this up. The wiki page on False Confession says:

A false confession is an admission of guilt in a crime in which the confessor is not responsible for the crime. False confessions can be induced through coercion or by the mental incompetency of the accused. Even though false confessions might appear to be an exceptional and unlikely event, they occur on a regular basis in case law, which is one of the reasons why jurisprudence has established a series of rules to detect, and subsequently reject, false confessions. These are called the "confession rules".

The first case it mentions is that of Brown v. Mississippi where it was held that:

confessions extracted through the use of physical brutality violate the Due Process Clause. In the case, three defendants had been sentenced to death for the murder of one Raymond Stewart on March 30, 1934. The convictions had been based solely on confessions obtained through violence:

"... defendants were made to strip and they were laid over chairs and their backs were cut to pieces with a leather strap with buckles on it, and they were likewise made by the said deputy definitely to understand that the whipping would be continued unless and until they confessed, and not only confessed, but confessed in every matter of detail as demanded by those present; and in this manner the defendants confessed the crime, and, as the whippings progressed and were repeated, they changed or adjusted their confession in all particulars of detail so as to conform to the demands of their torturers. When the confessions had been obtained in the exact form and contents as desired by the mob, they left with the parting admonition and warning that, if the defendants changed their story at any time in any respect from that last stated, the perpetrators of the outrage would administer the same or equally effective treatment.

"Further details of the brutal treatment to which these helpless prisoners were subjected need not be pursued. It is sufficient to say that in pertinent respects the transcript reads more like pages torn from some medieval account than a record made within the confines of a modern civilization which aspires to an enlightened constitutional government."

The Supreme Court concluded: "It would be difficult to conceive of methods more revolting to the sense of justice than those taken to procure the confessions of these petitioners, and the use of the confessions thus obtained as the basis for conviction and sentence was a clear denial of due process.... In the instant case, the trial court was fully advised by the undisputed evidence of the way in which the confessions had been procured.... The court thus denied a federal right fully established and specially set up and claimed, and the judgment must be reversed."

Then there is the case of the Central Park Five:

The Central Park Five were Harlem teens Yusef Salaam, Kevin Richardson, Antron McCray, Raymond Santana, and Kharey Wise. Ages 14 to 16, the teens were accused of bludgeoning, raping, and leaving to die a 28-year-old female jogger in New York's Central Park. The jogger was later learned to be Trisha Meili, an investment banker at Salomon Brothers. The media called the attack a brutal "wilding" by out of control youth.

The teens had been picked up in a police sweep of the park and conveniently were already in custody when the victim was found. All the teens except Salaam confessed to the crime on videotape. The prosecution would admit 13 years later that the confessions “differed from one another on the specific details of virtually every major aspect of the crime—who initiated the attack, who knocked the victim down, who undressed her, who struck her, who raped her, what weapons were used in the course of the assault and when the sequence of the events in the attack took place.” The victim was knocked unconscious and was not able to identify any attacker. All five were convicted at trial solely because of the confessions.

No DNA evidence tied the suspects to the crime, so the prosecution's case rested almost entirely on the confessions.[1] In fact, analysis indicated that the DNA collected at the crime scene did not match any of the suspects—and that the crime-scene DNA had all come from a single, as-yet-unknown person.

In 1990, following the convictions, DNA tests on semen found inside and on the victim, showed that it not did match any of the Central Park Five. The test results received little publicity and the recovered semen was attributed to a sixth "mystery" member of the gang. In January 2002, Matias Reyes, 31, a serial rapist, confessed to committing the crime alone. DNA test results matched Reyes and the convictions of the five were vacated. The five had already served their seven to thirteen year juvenile sentences. At least three were denied parole for maintaining their innocence in the crime.

The Pizza Hut Murder:

In 1988 Nancy DePriest was raped and murdered at the Pizza Hut she worked at in Austin, Texas. A coworker, Chris Ochoa, pled guilty to the murder. His friend, Richard Danziger, was convicted of the rape. Ochoa confessed to the murder and implicated his friend, Danziger, in the rape. It was later discovered that the confession was coerced and the guilty party was arrested. The forensic evidence that linked Danziger to the crime scene was a single pubic hair found in the restaurant that was consistent with his type of pubic hair. There was semen evidence collected, but DNA analysis was not performed. Both men received life sentences. Years later Achim Marino wrote letters while in prison claiming he was the murderer. The DNA was finally tested and matched Marino. Chris Ochoa and Richard Danziger were exonerated and released from prison in 2001 after 12 years of incarceration.

Corethian Bell:

Cook County, Illinois prosecutors were required to videotape murder confessions, but not interrogations, starting in August 1999. Corethian Bell, who has a diagnosis of mental retardation, said he confessed to the murder of his mother, Netta Bell, because police hit him so hard he was knocked off his chair and because he grew tired and hopeless after being in police custody for more than 50 hours. He said he thought that if he confessed, the interrogations would stop, then he could explain himself to a judge and be set free. With a confession on tape, he was then prosecuted and sent to jail. When the DNA at the crime scene was tested it matched a serial rapist, who already was in prison for three other violent sexual assaults, all in the same neighborhood as the Netta Bell murder.

Jeffrey Mark Deskovic:

Jeffrey Mark Deskovic, was convicted in 1990 at age 16, of raping, beating and strangling a high school classmate, even though jurors were told the DNA evidence in the case did not point to him. He was incarcerated for 15 years. He confessed to the crime after hours of an interrogation without being given an opportunity to seek legal counsel.

A case from Japan:

13 men and women, ranging in age from their early 50s to mid-70s, were arrested and indicted in Japan for buying votes in an election. Six confessed to buying votes with liquor, cash and catered parties. All were acquitted in 2007 in a local district court, which found that the confessions had been entirely fabricated. The presiding judge said the defendants had "made confessions in despair while going through marathon questioning."

And then there is the sad case of Michael Crowe. I suggest you get your hands on a program called “The Interrogators” that was on National Geographic not so long ago. It was about interrogation techniques but the part you want is about Michael Crowe. In fact, here is that part of the program containing excerpts from the interrogation and confession. Watch that.

Watched it? Ok, now for the facts surrounding that:

Michael Crowe confessed to the murder of his younger sister Stephanie Crowe in 1998. Michael, 14 at the time, was targeted by police when he seemed "distant and preoccupied" after Stephanie's body was discovered and the rest of the family grieved. After two days of intense questioning, Michael admitted to killing Stephanie. The confession was videotaped by police, and appeared to be coerced, at times Michael saying things to the effect of, "I'm only saying this because it's what you want to hear." Two of Michael's friends, Josh Treadway and Aaron Hauser, were questioned and confessed after many hours of interrogation. The charges were dropped after DNA testing linked a neighborhood transient to her blood. A TV movie was made out of the story called The Interrogation of Michael Crowe in 2002.

These are just a handful of the cases involving false confessions. So, are these people lying just for fun or the sake of lying, or have they been coerced, in a way under duress and or torture, into giving a false confession? If it was up to you, Michael Crowe would be seen as guilty of killing his sister. But to most people, Michael Crowe is completely innocent. If it was up to you, he would spend his life in prison, but because it’s not up to you, he isn’t. Does the fact that the law exonerated him mean that the law condones and or promotes lying? Was Michael lying or was his confession a result of inhumane behaviour, tantamount to torture? This is the main inherent flaw in the argument you keep copying and pasting. Anyway, let’s move on.

Since the verse in question mentions giving false confessions under duress/torture etc, but specifies it to ones faith, let’s look at what happened during one of the world darkest hours: Nazi Germany and the oppression and extermination of the Jewish people. In this case, a specific people, Jews, were persecuted, arrested and killed just because of their religion. There are only a couple of real life cases I need to mention here as you can find the rest, the internet is filled with them.

First of all, let’s look at Oskar Schindler. He was a member of the Nazi Party. But, he is credited with saving almost 1200 Jews from certain extermination in camps. How did he do what he did? He was able to do that because he didn’t tell the Nazis what was actually going on in his factories and what he was doing with the Jews in his factory. Yet, because of that, he ended up saving 1200 people’s lives. He has been honoured and serves as an inspiration for many people. Does his being honoured mean that people condone and or promote lying?

Another example would be that of Anne Frank. Victor Kugler, Johannes Kleiman, Miep Gies, Jan Gies, Bep Voskuijl and Hendrik Voskuijl did not tell the Nazi occupiers that there were Jews hiding in that house. They protected them and catered for them during the time they were in the Achterhuis. These people are honoured and serve as inspiration. Does them being honoured mean that people condone and or promote lying?
If we are to believe you, these people are liars and criminals and should be treated as such. Yet, for the vast majority of people, these people are heroes, not liars or criminals.

Do the actions of all these people condone and or promote lying? No, they don’t. Furthermore, there are various accounts of Jewish people pretending not to be Jews to escape persecution at the hand of the Nazis. Are they all liars and or criminals? According to you: yes. According to the vast majority of the world: no. Do their actions condone and or promote lying? According to you: yes. According to the vast majority of the world: no. This is the main difference. This is what you are failing to grasp.

man, thats the longest post I have seen from (Q), even though its full of the same BS.
Kudos to Arsalan.

Thanks. I wasn’t going to reply to that post at first, because essentially it’s just a big childish “nuh-uh”, but then I thought that if I don’t reply he will see it as some form of acknowledgement that he is right.

So tell me (Q) would you lie if you thought it would do good or prevent harm?
What would be your [atheistic] basis for making the decision of good or harm?
Do enlighten us befuddled delusional theists on your criteria for making the distinction.

I urge the Muslims on this board and this thread in particular not to associate this verse with “lying” or implying that this verse in any way allows for lying. That is not what the verse says and neither does the idiom support it. As Muslims therefore, we should refrain from attributing falsehoods to the Word of God, and not play into the hands of anti-Islamists by acknowledging what they say is right, by associating this verse with “lying” or implying it means “lying”.

Kudos? He hasn't shown his head around here for round 2. Where's the response to my questions posed to him? Sweet FA.

I have something called “A Life”. In that life, I am currently on a holiday, and will be for some time. During this holiday I play games, read books, watch TV/movies and don’t really bother that much about anything. On top of that, Ramadan is underway, taking up some of my time. There are also the various chores around the house that need to be done. There are some finances that need to be taken care of. We are working on various builds for DoA in Guild wars as a guild and we also intend to kill Mallyx with builds that require a certain amount of skill yet are not too hard. All this takes up some time. And of course, this isn’t the only forum I frequent.

Furthermore, you have not posed any questions relevant to the debate at hand. You have tried to weave in red herrings by asking questions about paradoxes which are not there and which you have not explained.

We've already established that paradoxes are irrelevant in that taquiyaa is false simply due to the fact there are no logical alternatives to the argument. So, away with your nonsense about trying to validate lying based on paradoxes, it is simply not a credible or logical argument.

What logical alternatives? What paradox are you talking about? The paradox that people like Schindler suffered? The paradox through which they saved thousands of lives? The paradox that ensured that Michael Crowe was tortured and confessed to what the interrogators wanted to hear? There is no paradox here. What this verse simply states, and only the 2nd verse of what you keep copying and pasting as the 1st verse is totally irrelevant, is that when people make derogatory remarks under torture and or duress regarding their religion, they need not be afraid that they will be punished by God. There’s no paradox there. It is no command. It’s simply a statement of fact. Of course, now you will bring up the “But God already knows they are being tortured, so why would he need to state this?”. God knows they are being tortured (Otherwise why would they be forgiven for saying derogatory stuff about their religion by God?) and this verse simply lets people know that God knows what happens during torture and God knows what is in one’s heart and therefore shows his mercy to anyone being tortured and or put under duress by other people to make derogatory remarks about his or her religion.

In the end, (Q) has not provided any evidence to support his stance whereas I have provided:

* current law from around the world
* cases regarding duress
* cases involving false confessions and exhonerations
* historical cases
* explanation and history of Hadith and Quranic verses

BTW, MW, I am still waiting on either a rebuttal or an apology for calling Muslims liars.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I posted:
BTW, MW, I am still waiting on either a rebuttal or an apology for calling Muslims liars.

*************
M*W: See my earlier post below:

“Originally Posted by S.A.M.
Its hard to talk down to people.”

************
M*W:

S.A.M., apparently you find it easy to talk down to atheists, and therefore, you have lied yet again. I'm convinced now that it isn't all Muslims who lie... it's just you. The really sad part of this is, you are even lying to yourself!

*************
M*W: Considering my titled thread, "Muslims lie," I wish to apologize to all other Muslims on this forum. I got the kind of negative reaction I expected from the thread title, but I want to officially clarify that I believe (and so do others on this forum) that it is only S.A.M. who lies. My sincere apologies to all other Muslims on this forum.

Sincerely,

~ M*W

 

[Arsalan]

*************
M*W: See my earlier post below:

“Originally Posted by S.A.M.
Its hard to talk down to people.”

************
M*W:

*************
M*W: Considering my titled thread, "Muslims lie," I wish to apologize to all other Muslims on this forum. I got the kind of negative reaction I expected from the thread title, but I want to officially clarify that I believe (and so do others on this forum) that it is only S.A.M. who lies. My sincere apologies to all other Muslims on this forum.

Sincerely,

~ M*W

Thank you At least you have some integrity. Unlike that other one

 

[S.A.M.]

Thank you At least you have some integrity. Unlike that other one

Calling all 1.5 billion people of a group liars for sensationalism is a sign of integrity?

Strange. I suppose calling all followers of Abrahamic religions evil and then claiming to support your "Christian" children while having Muslim "friends" is another sign of integrity.

 

[Simon Anders]

It shouldn't even go that deep.

I would submit that Sam, or any other theist who "believes" they would actually follow their gods criteria when presented with a paradoxical life and death situation in which they had to make split second decisions, wouldn't think for a second those criteria, as the adrenalin is coursing through them and panic sets in, hence would make the decision based on exactly the same criteria as anyone placed in the same predicaments. The criteria would remain the same, but the decisions could be very different, and enlightening.

Are there statistics showing just how many theists/atheists would tuck tail to save their own lives, or would they save the lives of others and give up their own?

As I assume you know, you are making a different kind of point. Essentially what I am saying is that theists, in practice, construct their moralities using subjective skills, just like atheists do - this can be passive acceptance of somep portion of society's morals for atheists or more active, but in either case they tend to have justification theories, and so do theists. In other words members of both groups can explain why their morals make sense - and this requires a claim of immense understanding and skill.

I have no idea if your hypothesis is correct. It does seem like belief in afterlife can help one play fast and loose with one's life. This is proactive however and I don't know if it is as strong in reactive situations - ie. the building is burning as opposed to a soldier voluteering to go to war.

 

[John99]

Calling all 1.5 billion people of a group liars for sensationalism is a sign of integrity?

Sure, dont take things so personally. I can call 7 billion people liars and not think twice about it. Let anyone amongst you who is not without this flaw cast the first stone.

You seem to be more proficient than most though.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Calling all 1.5 billion people of a group liars for sensationalism is a sign of integrity?

Strange. I suppose calling all followers of Abrahamic religions evil and then claiming to support your "Christian" children while having Muslim "friends" is another sign of integrity.

*************
M*W: S.A.M., you just can't get it together, can you? You are the one who is narrow minded. Again, I will state that it is not the entirety of the Muslim culture/faith that I call "liars." It is very obvious that it is only you who lies (once again). I have already apologized to the other Muslims on this forum, so you can give it a rest.

After all, we are all 'writers' on this forum. It's only SOP to attract attention with the title of a thread. What I said was shocking, and I got the exact kind of reaction I expected. The point of the matter is not what you write to get the attention of others, but what emotions that thread title will elicit in its readers. Grow the f*ck up.

 

[Simon Anders]

*************
M*W: S.A.M., you just can't get it together, can you? You are the one who is narrow minded. Again, I will state that it is not the entirety of the Muslim culture/faith that I call "liars." It is very obvious that it is only you who lies (once again). I have already apologized to the other Muslims on this forum, so you can give it a rest.

Have you apologized for saying this:

M*W: That goes for all religions, especially the Abrahamic ones. They are virtually evil. Anyone who professes devotion to the Abrahamic religions are evil. That goes for Christians, Muslims and Jews.

and have you apologized for saying that theists are hopeless as a group.

 

[Arsalan]

Calling all 1.5 billion people of a group liars for sensationalism is a sign of integrity?

Strange. I suppose calling all followers of Abrahamic religions evil and then claiming to support your "Christian" children while having Muslim "friends" is another sign of integrity.

Im not talking about her calling all religions evil or any other hypocrisy. Im merely talking about her apology for callng all Muslims liars

 

[(Q)]

So yeah, if you want to play the beacon of truth, be honest and fair when quoting another person.

:wtf:

Oh my, what a nice turn you took there

Yay ...Islamophobia... Muslims cannot think for themselves,,, Muslims are too stupid...
W00t!

I hope this is the final one as it’s getting boring...

:crazy:

Ok, so let me get this straight. You are saying that because a verse says not to form any treaties or alliances with another country that might harm any Muslim State, that would lead to people calling for the death of cartoonists? Wow, that’s one of the most cockamamie and irrational conclusions I’ve ever read, kudos for that btw.

You win debates by putting words in peoples mouths. Congratulations.

Let me make this clear here once and for all: nowhere does this verse give license to calling for the death of anyone. Nowhere. No Arabic idiom will ever support what you are saying. No translation of the verse will ever support what you are saying. It is a quite simple verse regarding the forming of treaties and alliances with non-Muslim states. The simple fact that you see this verse to mean what you have just said, proves, once again, your mindset when it comes to Islam, and it begins with “anti”.

You've just demonstrated my point, again.

I have my own “wisdom” thank you very much.

And, you demonstrate it so well.

I call those websites anti-Islamist websites for the same reason I call the BNP website a racist and anti-Semitic website. For the same reason I call Stor.... (I can say that here can I?) a racist and anti-Semitic website. For the same reason I call everything the Nazis wrote on the Jews anti-Semitic. For the same reason I call the House of Saud unIslamic. If you still don’t get why, it’s because the creators of those websites and or articles and the content regularly posted on it contains extreme bias, misquotation, twisting whatever is said out of context and the regular and incredible bile spewed by the members of those sites. That is the reason.

And that is YOUR conclusion based on Taqiyaa. You've come to the conclusion that your religion is being being harmed in some way, and can now justify, in your "wisdom," it is equivalent to the Nazis.

Again, you continue to make my point valid by offering oodles of examples. Thanks!

First of all, the reason you are an anti-Islamist liar is because you copy and paste whatever is posted on anti-Islamist websites and then shout on here “Look! This is the true Islam!” Figuratively speaking, of course.

Once you've made your decision and have justified it, you are free to lie, and you do.

In fact, you’re not even thinking. You’re just copy-and-pasting.

If you have justified it so, then it must be true.

Harm? It’s the same as me claiming that the BNP are racist. Are their views harmful? Of course. When they spout racist bullshit, I call them on it and call them racist. When you spout anti-Islamist lies, which aren’t even yours btw, I call you an anti-Islamist liar.

Yes, YOU call them racist. YOU call me an 'anti-Islamic liar.' YOU have come to those conclusions. YOU justify your conclusions. YOU are free to act. YOU continue to make my point valid.

Because I have not given you any reason to. I have not posted biased and one dimensional information from a hate website, you have. But you have called me a liar and an ass. Or, you will...

Puleeeze, give me a break. I have not called you "anti-anything" not due to what you did or didn't do, but instead the fact that I'm not under the delusion my "faith" is being harmed, as you are. You're actually making my point valid.

This verse therefore just states that people under torture should not worry about punishment from God.

So, there is much expectation of torture in your religion? And, the expectation is well-known by your god? And, he simply had to make sure his followers would never have to worry about their faith being jeopardized while under torture?

Why would your god create torture and then make people torture each other, and then put in this verse to protect their faith?

My knowledge about Islam exceeds yours. That’s not a strawman, that’s a fact.

My mistake, that was actually an Appeal to Authority. But, a fallacious point, nonetheless.

Would you like a prize or badge of honor?

Whereas you need to resort to copy-and-pasting snippets from anti-Islam websites, I read almost any book on Islam I can get my hands on, think and ponder various issues. I know about the history of the vast majority of verses. I know the Hadith that go with them. Do you? No.

An Appeal to Authority. As well, you openly lie about what you assume I know to make your point, only to make mine more valid.

Ah, so if you see every opportunity to exploit duress

For the record, this has nothing to do with duress, this is about dissimulation hence your argument on duress is invalid.

You know, if you want to be seen as an objective person, stop copying from anti-Islamist websites

You really should stop lying and making false conclusions as it does more to validate my point than yours.

This is once again proof of your lack of knowledge which you have continued to exhibit throughout your posts.

Appeal to Authority, again?

If you had any knowledge regarding duress, you would know the cases that mattered, you would know the strict guidelines set by the precedents, you would know that it would be nigh impossible to lie or commit any crime just for the heck of it and then claim duress.

Again, this has nothing to do with duress. Strawman argument.

What paradoxes? The one I mentioned previously? And no, it isn’t a clause. It’s just a statement to put at ease the minds of anyone who has been tortured and made derogatory remarks.

And, torture is sooooo common amongst Muslims?

It’s called free will. Humans can do what they want.

The concept of qadar is as silly as it is contradictory. There isn't any free will in the Abrahamic religions.

Why would a Muslim torture another Muslim to get him to say that Allah isn’t real or the Prophet isn’t a real Prophet?

You tell me, you're the one making the claims of torture.

Compulsion is mentioned in Ciceronian texts as edicts by a Preator yes, but I said law regarding duress and torture. The Romans used torture to get their prisoners to confess to whatever they wanted. That was a widespread practice until very recently. And it is returning thanks to Dubya.

Strawmen arguments. Irrelevant.

Go ahead, ask the Muslims on here whether this verse commands outright lying everywhere as you say or whether it says that anything a person says regarding his or her religion during torture and fear of death, torture and duress, cannot and should not be held against him or her and that person should not be punished. Also ask the people whether forgiving someone who is being tortured is morally and ethically reprehensible or a show of mercy.

I doubt any of them have been tortured to relinquish their faith, hence couldn't answer the question honestly. But, that has nothing to do with dissimulation.

Oh? Am I? Tell me, supported by Quranic verses, what actions I am allowed to take against anyone who posts on a forum and who I don’t agree with?

Dissimulation - Taqiyaa.

Islamophobia shows its face.

That is your conclusion, fallacious as it stands. Any criticism towards Islam is always considered Islamophobic, according to Muslims. It's complete bullshit, of course, and is simply another pathetic ploy to pander to Islam.

You haven’t made any points. All you’ve done is copy-and-paste and when provided with evidence to the contrary, you have gone around in circles trying to find paradoxes that aren’t there with the help of some lovely fish.

If you say so. I wouldn't want to disagree with you and be labeled an anti-Islamic liar spewing Islamophobic remarks.

Where have I lied?

You've been validating my point on an ongoing basis. I wouldn't expect you to admit to it, of course.

Then, if you want to show you are objective, start threads on Rahab, the lying spirit, shalom bayit, casuistry, pikuach nefesh, baba kamma 113 and duress. But we know you won’t. Why? Because that isn’t part of your agenda, neither do you possess any knowledge regarding those subjects. That is why you’re response to those was a simple “that’s not Islam, duh”. That says it all, really.

Appeal to Authority.

I have seen a lot of SAMs posts, and since you acknowledge that I am too biased to recognise what you are saying, I suggest you post the evidence here, then we can all go over it.

And you actually believe that you or I will agree that Sam is lying?

It’s not that it was hardly necessary; it’s that you don’t have any. Because to provide a rebuttal you would have to attack canon and regulations you know nothing about yet which form an essential part of the law in the West.

Appeal to Authority.

You'll have to excuse me but anything written by that moron Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid is not worth the paper it’s written on

Another conclusion on your part? You are the authority?

Funny that. You quoted the last small part while ignoring the tonne of text before it condemning lying and liars. I wonder why that is?

Because, it's a contradiction. Duh.

Now, as for the last part of the text, let’s talk about the Hadith he and you mentioned. These Hadith are part of an old lie fabricated against Islam.

An old lie, you say? Is that your opinion?

The Quran specifically forbids lying...

Yet, promotes it under certain conditions, right?

Or is this another example of my knowledge about Islam exceeding yours?

Appeal to Authority

anti-Islamists, anti-Islamists: it conforms to what your sick mind

Validating my point, continuum.

Let’s look at what happens in the real world.

These are just a handful of the cases involving false confessions.

Completely irrelevant strawmen arguments.

let’s look at what happened during one of the world darkest hours: Nazi Germany and the oppression and extermination of the Jewish people.

Irrelevant strawmen arguments. But, it does continue to validate my point as you need to lie to make your point.

If we are to believe you, these people are liars and criminals and should be treated as such. Yet, for the vast majority of people, these people are heroes, not liars or criminals.

Irrelevant strawmen arguments.

Are they all liars and or criminals? According to you: yes. According to the vast majority of the world: no. Do their actions condone and or promote lying? According to you: yes. According to the vast majority of the world: no. This is the main difference. This is what you are failing to grasp.

I grasp it, easily. Yet, it has nothing to do with Islam promoting lying. They are strawmen arguments.

I urge the Muslims on this board and this thread in particular not to associate this verse with “lying” or implying that this verse in any way allows for lying. That is not what the verse says and neither does the idiom support it. As Muslims therefore, we should refrain from attributing falsehoods to the Word of God, and not play into the hands of anti-Islamists by acknowledging what they say is right, by associating this verse with “lying” or implying it means “lying”.

Urge all you want, it means very little other than you appear desperate to have your views held. By simply stating "anti-Islamists" you nullify your request completely. You've already come to the conclusion that when Islam is criticized, it is anti-Islamic. You lose..

Furthermore, you have not posed any questions relevant to the debate at hand. You have tried to weave in red herrings by asking questions about paradoxes which are not there and which you have not explained.

Or, more precisely, you have written off anything I say as "anti-Islamic" "Islamophobic" and so on... and then, you lie about it and further validate my point.

What logical alternatives? What paradox are you talking about?

The paradoxes under which Taqiyaa is stipulated. It is a false stipulation on the grounds it is the only logical alternative.

In the end, (Q) has not provided any evidence to support his stance whereas I have provided:

* current law from around the world
* cases regarding duress
* cases involving false confessions and exhonerations
* historical cases
* explanation and history of Hadith and Quranic verses

What you provided are Appeals to Authority, Strawmen arguments and lies. In other words, dissimulation. Congratulations for making my point valid.

 

[(Q)]

Im not talking about her calling all religions evil or any other hypocrisy. Im merely talking about her apology for callng all Muslims liars

I would agree. Zak is the only Muslim here who is honest.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

and have you apologized for saying that theists are hopeless as a group.

*************
M*W: No, and I don't plan to.

 

[John99]

For some reason M*W only hates Christians.

 

[Simon Anders]

*************
M*W: No, and I don't plan to.

So you apolagized for saying that Muslims are liars, but you won't apolagize for saying that believing Muslims, Jews and Christians are evil.

OK. Not much I can do about that. However, FYI: most people are more offended by being called evil than by being called liars. Run it by your Muslim friends. I think they will back me up on this one.

I noticed you only mention my question about 'hopeless' and leave out the far more important accusation you made and seem unwilling to apologize for.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

For some reason M*W only hates Christians.

*************
M*W: "Hate" is the wrong word. I don't waste my energy "hating" anyone. I just prefer to ignore them.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

So you apolagized for saying that Muslims are liars, but you won't apolagize for saying that believing Muslims, Jews and Christians are evil.

OK. Not much I can do about that. However, FYI: most people are more offended by being called evil than by being called liars. Run it by your Muslim friends. I think they will back me up on this one.

I noticed you only mention my question about 'hopeless' and leave out the far more important accusation you made and seem unwilling to apologize for.

*************
M*W: Give it a rest. I said "Abrahamic relgions are evil," and I stand by that. Abraham didn't even exist. The myths about Abraham came about during the time of the worship of the zodiac. Abraham represents the Ram or Aries as in springtime. Why should I apologize for others' ignorance of the origination of said myth?

 

[Simon Anders]

*************
M*W: Give it a rest. I said "Abrahamic relgions are evil," and I stand by that. Abraham didn't even exist. The myths about Abraham came about during the time of the worship of the zodiac. Abraham represents the Ram or Aries as in springtime. Why should I apologize for others' ignorance of the origination of said myth?

Admittedly the grammar is poor in the second sentence but...

M*W: That goes for all religions, especially the Abrahamic ones. They are virtually evil. Anyone who professes devotion to the Abrahamic religions are evil. That goes for Christians, Muslims and Jews.

if you really only meant the religions you can see how incredibly poorly written the above is.

You could have given this a rest a long time ago by clarifying what you meant.

So. To be clear. You do not think that
Anyone who professes devotion to the Abrahamic religions are [sic] evil.

Is that correct? You do not agree with the above statement?

 

[Simon Anders]

*************
M*W: "Hate" is the wrong word. I don't waste my energy "hating" anyone. I just prefer to ignore them.

Except your children, I assume- who are living abundant lives, by the way rather than the hopeless ones you attribute to Christians in general.

 

[Simon Anders]

*************
M*W: No, and I don't plan to.

So you consider your Muslim friends and you Christian children are hopeless or you feel not need to apologize for generalizations that you know are false.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

So you consider your Muslim friends and you Christian children are hopeless or you feel not need to apologize for generalizations that you know are false.

*************
M*W: You do not know how I think nor feel about anything. You presume you do, but you don't. I like my Muslim friends, and I love all my children regardless of what they believe about religion. I am not in the business to change their belief systems. I do regret forcing them to believe in christianity, because belief in christianity is an obvious lie.

I will not apologize for disavowing Abrahamic religions anymore than I would apologize for christians being sun worshippers. You just don't get it. You have tunnel vision, and it's getting more dim by the minute.