Gun shots outside Parliament: Police shoot assailant following car attack on Westminster Bridge

[Zarlak]

even now you need the last word.

Drink more!

No! Think of the calories.

 

[JPRouve]

I drink a litre daily.

I take it that your body isn't in a jihad against milk.

 

[Zarlak]

I take it that your body isn't in a jihad against milk.

That depends on your definition of jihad. Are you a Muslim of non-Muslim? Because that changes everything.

 

[JPRouve]

Are you even Muslim, who do you think you are to tell me that word.

Does my grandmother count? And my apologize if you have been offended.

 

[Zarlak]

Does my grandmother count? And my apologize if you have been offended.

I'm not offended, I was just using EyeInTheSky's line that if you're not a Muslim you can't say what the word means because it's not your word.

 

[JPRouve]

I'm not offended, I was just using EyeInTheSky's line that if you're not a Muslim you can't say what the word means because it's not your word.

Oooh. I hope that it doesn't work for english.

 

[Sultan]

@Zarlak @sammsky1 @EyeInTheSky

I think both of you are debating from a different angle. The debate is not simply about Arabic or it's simple translations. It's about the Quran and it's translation with many nuances. One word or sentence can have many meanings. It is not enough just to know Arabic the language to understand the Qur'an. Along with extensive knowledge of the rules of the language, its styles and manners of expression, a deep insight into the rules of Shariah is required.

It is essential to know what has been narrated from the Messenger (SAW) and his companions that may give some insight into how one should interpret the meaning on the basis of his understanding. The one who does that must also have extensive knowledge of the rules of the Arabic language and its styles and manner of expression, as well as deep insight into the context of the word, verse, history, when, where and why the verse was revealed. Islamic jurisprudence, and consensus of the first few generations of Muslims; or the consensus and jurists of the Muslim world.

 

[Zarlak]

@Zarlak @sammsky1 @EyeInTheSky

I think both of you are debating from a different angle. The debate is not simply about Arabic or it's simple translations. It's about the Quran and it's translation with many nuances. One word or sentence can have many meanings. It is not enough just to know Arabic the language to understand the Qur'an. Along with extensive knowledge of the rules of the language, its styles and manners of expression, a deep insight into the rules of Shariah is required.

It is essential to know what has been narrated from the Messenger (SAW) and his companions that may give some insight into how one should interpret the meaning on the basis of his understanding. The one who does that must also have extensive knowledge of the rules of the Arabic language and its styles and manner of expression, as well as deep insight into the context of the word, verse, history, when, where and why the verse was revealed. Islamic jurisprudence, and consensus of the first few generations of Muslims; or the consensus and jurists of the Muslim world.

I agree with you completely, I just called out the silly statement that you can't tell somebody what something means because you're not a native and they are. It's a silly starting position, it reduces somebodies starting position based on nothing at all and elevates another based on something that doesn't necessarily make any difference. It's just a silly tactic used to reduce somebodies credibility without actually focusing on the merits of their statement. It was one throwaway line that wasn't true that I picked up on, I never imagined it would evolve into this.

 

[sammsky1]

This part is amusing, it isn't 'their' word. It's a word that has a definition accessible to anybody and everybody. I am an English speaker, but there's probably an Arabic speaker out there who can tell me what an English word means that I might not know. Just because that's your language doesn't mean you know and understand every word in it, nor does it mean that nobody else can understand what a word means. You don't have to go to a high priest to gain insight into what a word means, you can find out anywhere.

@Zarlak @sammsky1 @EyeInTheSky

I think both of you are debating from a different angle. The debate is not simply about Arabic or it's simple translations. It's about the Quran and it's translation with many nuances. One word or sentence can have many meanings. It is not enough just to know Arabic the language to understand the Qur'an. Along with extensive knowledge of the rules of the language, its styles and manners of expression, a deep insight into the rules of Shariah is required.

It is essential to know what has been narrated from the Messenger (SAW) and his companions that may give some insight into how one should interpret the meaning on the basis of his understanding. The one who does that must also have extensive knowledge of the rules of the Arabic language and its styles and manner of expression, as well as deep insight into the context of the word, verse, history, when, where and why the verse was revealed. Islamic jurisprudence, and consensus of the first few generations of Muslims; or the consensus and jurists of the Muslim world.

I agree with you completely, I just called out the silly statement that you can't tell somebody what something means because you're not a native and they are. It's a silly starting position, it reduces somebodies starting position based on nothing at all and elevates another based on something that doesn't necessarily make any difference. It's just a silly tactic used to reduce somebodies credibility without actually focusing on the merits of their statement. It was one throwaway line that wasn't true that I picked up on, I never imagined it would evolve into this.

Just to close my contribution to this stupid sub-discussion @Zarlak not quite what you said and you are being dienegenious

As @Sultan has said, in the instance of Islamic Arabic scriptures, one does require a 'High Priest' or somebody with societal and contextual knowledge to get the true meaning. A point you 'now agree with completely'. I dont think its a silly point whatsoever, especially in these times when misinterpretation can be catastrophic.

You can argue that certain 'High Priests' may have different agendas but that is an entirely different debate.

 

[Zarlak]

Just to close may contribution to this stupid sub-discussion @Zarlak not quite what you said and you are being dienegenious

As @Sultan has said, in the instance of Arabic Islamic scriptures, one does require a 'High Priest' or somebody with similar societal and contextual knowledge to get the true meaning. A point you 'now agree with completely'. I dont think its a silly point whatsoever, especially in these times when misinterpretation can be catastrophic.

You can argue that certain 'High Priests' may have different agendas but that is an entirely different debate.

Now who is arguing semantics? As I said already, the definitions of words are very easy to find including from Muslim sources. If you want to pretend that these words have yet to be defined and that we must complete a pilgrimage to a temple in order to have them bestow the meaning on us then be my guest. Rather than the truth, which is that you can simply now look them up as all of this has been done already. The words may have at some point in the distant past required somebody to provide context to them, but that was done long ago and is now freely available to those who are both native and non-native speakers. This argument is truly ridiculous.

 

[sammsky1]

Now who is arguing semantics? As I said already, the definitions of words are very easy to find including from Muslim sources. If you want to pretend that these words have yet to be defined and that we must complete a pilgrimage to a temple in order to have them bestow the meaning on us then be my guest. Rather than the truth, which is that you can simply now look them up as all of this has been done already.

The words may have at some point in the distant past required somebody to provide context to them, but that was done long ago and is now freely available to those who are both native and non-native speakers. This argument is truly ridiculous.

In your case, evidently not, given how you've crudely translated words to suit your own agenda.

eg: even in the above post, Muslims go to mosques, not temples. didn't do so well there, did you?

Anyways, Im beyond bored of this. Reply and disagree as many times as you wish, it will only amplify your bigotry on this subject.

 

[Moonred]

What a debate. If you are a native speaker, chances are you'd probably know the true meaning of a certain word. However there is no guarantee that a non native speaker will not know the same just because he isn't native.

 

[Synco]

What a debate. If you are a native speaker, chances are you'd probably know the true meaning of a certain word. However there is no guarantee that a non native speaker will not know the same just because he isn't native.

I think the underlying dissent here is not just on a linguistic level, but on an absolutely fundamental one: Is this text the absolute truth (because it is the word of God), or is it man-made and therefore necessarily inconsistent?

Is there a divine 'true meaning' to be found? That would justify the otherwise exaggerated insistence on the text's original, absolutely undistorted form. Or is it just one of many religious ideologies that can be critically deconstructed? That would mean understanding its practical social influence is probably a more important issue than attempting a coherent intrinsic interpretation (which might not be possible anyway).

So this basic question has serious consequences for the possibility of interpretation, translation and criticism from 'outside'. And I have the feeling that the insistence on the Arabic language (and extensive knowledge of its connotations) has something to do with this question.

 

[WackyWengerWorld]

I see where you are coming from. There is a central authority imo and its called the Quran also the hadith. Also in every country, the ruling power does not advocate for terrorist acts. There is and has been a deliberate and insidious attempt by certain parties to hijack the word Jihad.

Jihad means the spiritual struggle within oneself against sin. So in an accidental way you are right in that "Jihad is a legitimate part of Islam". The linguistic meaning is as follows:

• The Arabic word "jihad" is often translated as "holy war," but in a purely linguistic sense, the word "jihad" means struggling or striving.
• The arabic word for war is: "al-harb"

These are 2 different words. You see the fallacy of trying to attribute that word "Jihad" to anything to do with "holy" or "war" or any other narrative?

There's no 'hijacking' of the word Jihad and while it can be used to mean 'struggle' against sin, it also means physical struggle as in the act of war. To pretend otherwise is ignoring much of the Quran and Sunnah. The Salafis use the word Jihad very frequently and they are very very rarely talking about a struggle against sin, some may say they use it quite aggressively. When a muslim says 'I'm going on Jihad'. No Muslim literally ever actually thought, 'oh that's nice, he's off to be spiritual and overcome his sins, good for him'. They know full well he's going off to fight a cause.

if someone decided to use the word "struggle" in the context of a horrendous act despite being told explicitly and implicitly with grave warnings, both by his Spiritual and Legal Authority does that mean the Authority legitimises the very act it warns gravely against?

Many Islamic leaders do condemn terrorism, others vocally encourage it. If yours don't then good, most don't, but a large number do. If I was in your shoes I wouldn't want to be associated with Islamofacism either, but that fact is it exists

In no other sphere of existence would someone use this argument against any peoples unless it was a double standard or a deliberate misinformation campaign based on an aggressive agenda. We would all be rolling on the floor laughing if the shoe was on the other foot and someone tried to equivocate secularism or democracy or even Christianity with war because certain groups plan/plot and make up demonstrable and proven lies about countries in order to invade and steal their resources whilst killing millions across the globe yet it happens.

It did and it was a war crime. But the fact it required lies to justify it shows it was against the democratic system. IN contrast ISIS have daleel from Quran/Sunah.

The problem I have is that people are jumping to the most negative possible interpretation despite the actual facts of any aspect of Islam which is due to both an inner dislike or hate for it and the constant and deliberate legitimisation of that ill will via propaganda from elements in places of power. Just because someone saw a bbc news clip or read a website and saw the word "Jihad" on it suddenly they are an expert in The Arabic language and what Islam teaches.

You aren't an expert on what Islam teaches either, you haven't read very much about it at all. You laughably denied quotes from Muhammed's first biographies and your response was 'I won't discuss it here I just want to respect the dead'. Yet you're still here arguing, however many postson. So here it is IbnIshaq's first biography of Muahmmed, pages 510-516, Muhammed massacred all the men of a tribe, enslaved all of their women and married/raped the wife of a man who he tortured to extort treasure from him. He then told off Bilaal because Bilaal let said rape victim view the dead bodies of her dad/husband, before he raped her and Muhammed thought it insensitive of Bilaal. His companion guarded his tent all night because he thought said rape victim was going to extract revenge on Muhammed. Can you be bothered to read 6 pages of the holy prophets firs biography Eyeinthesky, it's here for you (pages 510-516, mainly 510/511/515/516 if you're being lazy):

http://www.justislam.co.uk/images/Ibn Ishaq - Sirat Rasul Allah.pdf

Read on to hear how 'the perfect man on earth' then agreed neighbouring tribes were asked to give up all of their property but allowed them to keep half of their property as tribute as they told him they knew how better to farm etc and they'd make him more money.

Now I'll do you a favour and argue for you now because let's be honest you don't have the knowledge to debate here. Not one Islamic scholar denies these tales of Muhammed's massacres and rapes that I posted were recorded in Mohammed's first biography because they know full well that they were. They claim the leaders of the time (200 years after Muhammed) were warlords and made up these stories to justify their warring. The thing is no Islamic scholars questioned this version of events until the 20th century. Ethics and standards of morals naturally changes over time though.

In seriousness the Paris cartoons were garbage but this story told in the right tone would be hilarious. That and the real satanic verses where Muhammed decided for about 6 months where Muhammed said 2 daughters of Allah were also gods to be worshiped but then came back and said it was satan pretending to be Allah misleading him that whole time. You might have thought Allah might have put him straight in those 6 months, but Allah was busy, probably with his 24/7 surveillance of every human alive while analysing every single virtious and sinful act they've ever commited. It's completely understandable that Allah as busy as he was with all those trillions of actions couldn't keep Muhammed informed of who was and wasn't a god for 6 months.

Thankfully there are a good and steadily rising number of people who actually use their reasoning and rationale to investigate the subjects pertinent to the topic and don't rely on the manipulated mainstream media owned by the very parties that seek to spread these lies and hate. There are others who are just misinformed and can't really be blamed for being lost in the myriad of BS

And unlike yourself there are those who've bothered to read the uncut versions of Muahmmed's biographies.

 

[WackyWengerWorld]

I think the underlying dissent here is not just on a linguistic level, but on an absolutely fundamental one: Is this text the absolute truth (because it is the word of God), or is it man-made and therefore necessarily inconsistent?

Is there a divine 'true meaning' to be found? That would justify the otherwise exaggerated insistence on the text's original, absolutely undistorted form. Or is it just one of many religious ideologies that can be critically deconstructed? That would mean understanding its practical social influence is probably a more important issue than attempting a coherent intrinsic interpretation (which might not be possible anyway).

So this basic question has serious consequences for the possibility of interpretation, translation and criticism from 'outside'. And I have the feeling that the insistence on the Arabic language (and extensive knowledge of its connotations) has something to do with this question.

The irony is that the Quran is not written in what we know to be modern Arabic and isn't completely legible in modern Arabic so needs written commentary from 'scollars' to interpret it. It also has many words that aren't of Arabic origin. It's almost as if it's literature taken from other cultures in an era where Arabs were generally not literate.

Religions as a whole don't want the masses to analyse and interpret them because they know they'll get found out under the microscope. Muslims complain when people analyse Muhammed's biography and demand 'you can only understand Islam/Quran in Arabic'. Ctholics did the same demanding only Latin speakers have access to understanding Christianity. It's hiding their flawed religion and controlling the masses.

 

[Synco]

The irony is that the Quran is not written in what we know to be modern Arabic and isn't completely legible in modern Arabic so needs written commentary from 'scollars' to interpret it. It also has many words that aren't of Arabic origin. It's almost as if it's literature taken from other cultures in an era where Arabs were generally not literate.

Religions as a whole don't want the masses to analyse and interpret them because they know they'll get found out under the microscope. Muslims complain when people analyse Muhammed's biography and demand 'you can only understand Islam/Quran in Arabic'. Ctholics did the same demanding only Latin speakers have access to understanding Christianity. It's hiding their flawed religion and controlling the masses.

Agree with the second paragraph (know too little about the first one). I see it as mainly a kind of defensive strategy against 'outside' criticism as well.

And as I implied, the way pieces of theology are used in practice by different religions and their subsections is more interesting to me than what they supposedly 'really' mean.

 

[Carlsen19]

The woman who was rescued from the Thames has also now died of her injuries. RIP .

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...cristea-who-fell-from-bridge-dies-of-injuries

 

[Mihai]

The woman who was rescued from the Thames has also now died of her injuries. RIP .

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...cristea-who-fell-from-bridge-dies-of-injuries

Yeah, just heard this. Awful.

We will be meeting this evening with the Romanian community here to light a candle

 

[Penna]

RIP Andreea Cristea, that's so very sad.

 

[Vault Dweller]

That's so sad, RIP