9/11 Conspirator Moussaoui Is One Sick Dude

[mellowboy]

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

Perhaps something was lost in translation but the entire verse isn't any different than the shortened version. It's just tacking on a longer list of things to fight against and saying "keep at it until they are all under our rule".

It makes whole lot of difference. You cannot take things out of context.

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by mellowboy

In a lengthy explanation of why he hates Americans, Moussaoui said Islam requires Muslims to be the world's superpower as he flipped through a copy of the Quran searching for verses to support his assertion. He said one verse requires Muslims "to fight against all who believe ot in Allah."

Thats the partial quote from Chapter 9 verse 29.

Heres the full verse..

9:29Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

I agree with Broke, the meaning is the same. The words are the same. "Fight those who believe not" is the same phrase used in both instances. The full verse (which you provided) still says that the believer is to fight and subdue the pagans.
We could go ahead and cite all the verses that refer to commandments to fight and subdue the unbelievers, and all the verses that reference a Jihad against the infidels (which are quite numerous, btw), but that would take up far too much bandwidth, and I don't want to irritate the mods.

Moussaoui is obviously following the commands of his religion as he sees them, as are millions of his brethren. That's fine; it works for their existence, and it is obviously a foreign concept to the western world. The actions promulgated by those beliefs are contrary to our laws, and we will deal with them.

He's proud of his actions, and he sees them as a pathway to paradise. So be it. It's interesting that he now sees death as a less than desirable outcome. A truly zealous believer would be willing to die for his cause. Perhaps his fervent rhetoric has now caught up with him, and he is now twisting like a trapped coyote, trying to chew his own leg off to escape the snare.

[mellowboy]

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

I agree with Broke, the meaning is the same. The words are the same. "Fight those who believe not" is the same phrase used in both instances. The full verse (which you provided) still says that the believer is to fight and subdue the pagans.
We could go ahead and cite all the verses that refer to commandments to fight and subdue the unbelievers, and all the verses that reference a Jihad against the infidels (which are quite numerous, btw), but that would take up far too much bandwidth, and I don't want to irritate the mods.

Who'd you rather believe? Me..a muslim or Broke? YOU CANNOT TAKE THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT!! What part do you not understand? Im a muslim and i've been studying Islam and comparative religions for 13 years. Dont sit here and agree with someone who has very little knowledge of Islam. This is not about religion. ITs about Massaoui. Some of you ppl still dont see my point or you just ignored it. How can you believe some article that you yourselves haven't seen/heard the footage??

[driftinggrifter2]

[quote]

Originally Posted by mellowboy

Well haven't the media lied before? I already caught them for using partial quote from the Qur'an.From my experiance, ppl who tends to use partial quote are only hurting the image of Islam. SO why should I consider this a reliable source?? Media is only good for local news. Should you believe what they say about that Moussaoui when NO ONE here has seen the footage of the courtroom? QUOTE]

No the media doesnt lie the just stretch the truth out of context to suit there needs for ratings. They may omit or elaborate certain things to help benefit their selfes.
But I agree with you on Qur'an. Bin Laden does the same thing. He will take excerpts that fit his needs and that could be loosely translated into what he wants it to really men. Down with America but if you really read the Qur'an it doesn't say any of that. And for the people that say that verse that mellowboy laid out is still telling people to hurt everyone just remember ya'lls bibles have the same type of references in them. I am a atheist so no I don't take sides.

[Broke_as_****]

Originally Posted by mellowboy

Who'd you rather believe? Me..a muslim or Broke? YOU CANNOT TAKE THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT!! What part do you not understand? Im a muslim and i've been studying Islam and comparative religions for 13 years. Dont sit here and agree with someone who has very little knowledge of Islam. This is not about religion. ITs about Massaoui. Some of you ppl still dont see my point or you just ignored it. How can you believe some article that you yourselves haven't seen/heard the footage??

Well then why don't you explain the difference between the two instead of just saying "YOU CANNOT TAKE THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT!!". Yelling "Believe me because I'm smart with this stuff and he's not" even when the evidence is apparently pointing someway other than what you're saying is not going to gather alot of believers.

Yes it was a partial quote, no thats not good. But take it as simply what you wrote, the meaning of the the pieces remains the same.

"Fight against those who are not Muslim"

Or

"Fight against those who:

Aren't Muslim
Don't believe in the Last Day
Believe/do/own things that are forbidden by Allah
Don't acknowledge the Truth
Even if they do believe in some God

Until they are all subdued under Islam"

One is longer, the meaning is still there. That means it's a slight distortion that still retains the original meaning. It wouldn't be any different if they were up there repeating the entire section, in fact it would probably sound worse. Unless there is some part previous to this that states "If you are attacked first then go to section 9:29 for further instruction" or after that says "Yeah 9:29 is a bit out there so here are some limitations on that" it is not out of context.

I'm no scholar of any religious text, so if there is some sort of circumstance that shows this passage is not what it seems, please explain it here.

[mellowboy]

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

Well then why don't you explain the difference between the two instead of just saying "YOU CANNOT TAKE THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT!!". Yelling "Believe me because I'm smart with this stuff and he's not" even when the evidence is apparently pointing someway other than what you're saying is not going to gather alot of believers.

Im not tryin to convince or convert anyone here to become muslims. Its on them if they want to convert. Islam is still the worlds fastest growing religion. I doubt I had anything to do with that.


Me yelling? When it comes to religion, I dont lose my temper, instead im patient with the person. If they want to understand then i'll try my best with my knowledge. But I always advise ppl to ask a scholar.

Even if you read the whole verse (as I explained earlier on this thread) that you must read the begining of the chapter in order for you to understand it.

Heres the very first verse of the chapter that im goin to post it again...




9:1

A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Apostle, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-

Before you start picking certain quotes which you think its violent, go read from the begining. The Qur'an is a very concetrated book! You can't just skim through it and think you'd undertand it already. Thats impossible. You have to use your best intellect. You also have to read the history of Islam about how it rose to power. Christians arabs chose the muslim rule over the Romans who happens to be Catholic at the time! So it shows me that they rather pay jezya then to be ruled by Romans. We pay taxes here in America! Why dont you say something about that? If we dont pay taxes, then IRS would smack us hard! Would you agree? Im not angry or anything but I think you shouldn't speak about something that you have hardly any knowledge or no knowledge for that matter.I just dont want you to end up someone like Craig Winn.

[Broke_as_****]

Originally Posted by mellowboy

Im not tryin to convince or convert anyone here to become muslims. Its on them if they want to convert. Islam is still the worlds fastest growing religion. I doubt I had anything to do with that.

When did I say anything about converting? All I meant was no one is going to believe what someone is saying if they aren't going to explain it.

Me yelling? When it comes to religion, I dont lose my temper, instead im patient with the person. If they want to understand then i'll try my best with my knowledge. But I always advise ppl to ask a scholar.

Internet lingo dictates all caps as yelling. You seem to be quite bent about this issue, more inclined just to tell everyone what we don't know what we're talking about.

Even if you read the whole verse (as I explained earlier on this thread) that you must read the begining of the chapter in order for you to understand it.

Heres the very first verse of the chapter that im goin to post it again...

9:1A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Apostle, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-

So explain how that changes section 9:29, to me 9:1 is saying even though you may have non-muslim allies keep them held as seperate from the believers. That doesn't seem to have anything to do with 9:29.

Before you start picking certain quotes which you think its violent, go read from the begining. The Qur'an is a very concetrated book! You can't just skim through it and think you'd undertand it already. Thats impossible. You have to use your best intellect. You also have to read the history of Islam about how it rose to power. Christians arabs chose the muslim rule over the Romans who happens to be Catholic at the time! So it shows me that they rather pay jezya then to be ruled by Romans.

Point out in this thread where I called the Koran violent. When did I ever claim I understood it? I said the exact opposite, I stated what I made of the passage and asked if there was something you knew of that I did not that changed the apparent meaning.

Some people way back when chose muslim rule over Roman. Uh...good for them...explain how that factors into the current topic?

We pay taxes here in America! Why dont you say something about that? If we dont pay taxes, then IRS would smack us hard! Would you agree?

Your comparing the paying of taxes that go towards roads, defense, schools and everything else to run a country to a tribute that was directly implied to those who weren't muslim to specifically show they were subject to islam?

Apple <------------------------------------------------------------------> Orange

but I think you shouldn't speak about something that you have hardly any knowledge or no knowledge for that matter.I just dont want you to end up someone like Craig Winn.

I asked a question, I didn't claim to have any knowledge on the subject, quite the opposite in fact. If I'm wrong, explain why, and actually explain it, not just post another little blurb that doesn't seem to have much to do with the section in question.

Craig Winn made accusations and ran away. I merely asked a question and I am right here still waiting for an answer. Your concern for me is touching however I think your efforts would be put to better use answering a simple question from someone that was merely looking for an explaination.

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by mellowboy

Dont sit here and agree with someone who has very little knowledge of Islam. This is not about religion.

I agree, this particular discussion isn't about religion. It's about language and the meaning of words. Your original complaint was that Moussaoui was quoted out of context and you supplied an entire verse for our information and we asked some questions. Before this gets any more heated, all I'd like to know is this: does the verse say fight and subdue or doesn't it? And I am very much aware there are many ways to fight, violent and nonviolent.

You gave us the entire verse for clarification and I just want to know if it says what it says. I looked at the entire verse you supplied, and --- I'm sorry, man, but it still says the same thing; in fact, it elaborates on Moussaoui's paraphrasing.

Whether true Islam is violent towards the "infidel" or not, I really don't give a rip. We've seen plenty of violence in the name of Islam. Shame on them. There's been plenty of misguided violence in the name of Christianity, too. Shame on them as well.

One thing I find interesting: verse 1A talks about immunity. Immunity from what? Since you use that verse specifically along with verse 29, does it mean immunity from fighting and subjugation? Since it mentions contracted alliances, what happens to those with whom the believers have no contracts?



Who is Craig Winn?

[mellowboy]

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

When did I say anything about converting? All I meant was no one is going to believe what someone is saying if they aren't going to explain it.

It seemed like you were implying that what im saying is trying to get ppl to believe me and so they can convert. My assumption is wrong I guess....

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

So explain how that changes section 9:29, to me 9:1 is saying even though you may have non-muslim allies keep them held as seperate from the believers. That doesn't seem to have anything to do with 9:29.

The reason I posted the first verse is because it explains that theres a mutual contract with non muslims. Meaning that they can't be harmed because both sides agreed to peace. This is during the time of our Prophet, when the non muslim tribes try to push Muhammad (p) out of Mecca/Medina. SO when the non muslim tribes lost, they negotiated for peace and both sides came to an agreement. And yes one of those agreement is that they have to pay jezya..taxes. They pay jezya in order for us to protect them.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

Point out in this thread where I called the Koran violent. When did I ever claim I understood it? I said the exact opposite, I stated what I made of the passage and asked if there was something you knew of that I did not that changed the apparent meaning.

Look, Chapter 9 is mostly used by ppl against Islam who tries to make us seem violent on that chapter. They often take things out of context from that chapter.Instead you provided the whole verse but you understand it very little. Thats because you haven't read the begining. Instead, you just kept bickering saying that it doesn't matter if its from the begining or the middle. This is wrong. I will try to explain this later in the post...

You also making it seem like we're not good ppl or unfair (which leads to my next explanation)? So correct me if i'm wrong?

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

Some people way back when chose muslim rule over Roman. Uh...good for them...explain how that factors into the current topic?

It explains alot according to my assumption about your earlier comments. ASSUMING that you said we're unfair or awful ppl, why would the Christians choose the Muslim rule over the Romans? This is the reason why I bought this up.

Heres an example : Most Islamaphobes would say this (I got this from another site) , "many christians and jews converted to Islam for fear for their lives, and to avoid paying huge taxes to the muslims, and when they got the chance they reverted to their original faith."


There are no records of such reversions to their previous faiths, and if they feared for their lives then why did many convert gradually over the centuries rather than immedietly under the new rule? Moreover, why did so many not convert at all if the fear and taxes were unbearable? Am I right or am I wrong?

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

Your comparing the paying of taxes that go towards roads, defense, schools and everything else to run a country to a tribute that was directly implied to those who weren't muslim to specifically show they were subject to islam?

Apple <------------------------------------------------------------------> Orange

The tax non-Muslims pay in an Islamic state is comparable to the tax non-national citizens pay in any state; the differences are that in Islam the tax is lower than that of the dominating group and used for purposes to their own advantage. As such, it is even of a greater benefit to them in opposition to the tax non-nationals pay as citizens in any state.

Originally Posted by Broke_as_****

Craig Winn made accusations and ran away. I merely asked a question and I am right here still waiting for an answer. Your concern for me is touching however I think your efforts would be put to better use answering a simple question from someone that was merely looking for an explaination.

I did explained it the best as I can. Ok look, for an example, when you read a story for the first time..do you read from the begining or you start in the middle? Well lets say you say , you read from the begining. We all know why we have to start from the begining because so we can understand whats goin on with the story otherwise if you start in the middle, you'd be lost right?? Same goes for watching movies and so on....

I would explain it much better in person. To sit down and show step by step and the meaning of Islam altogether. I just can't do it all here on the internet.

[mellowboy]

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

One thing I find interesting: verse 1A talks about immunity. Immunity from what? Since you use that verse specifically along with verse 29, does it mean immunity from fighting and subjugation? Since it mentions contracted alliances, what happens to those with whom the believers have no contracts?

As far as my knowledge goes (which I'd advise you to get another view from another muslim). When someone asks for peace we have to grant it to them. If you and I fist fight and you ask me to stop , I'd have to stop. Islam thrives for peace and we have to uphold the meaning of peace.

Now for the contract. If no agreement is reached, then they must keep negotiating as long as the otherside doesn't wage another war. So again, if peace is available, we must accept it. This is as far as my knowledge goes though. Its better for you to go to a Scholar and get other views on this.

Originally Posted by 03cavPA

Who is Craig Winn?

Hes an author of "Prophet Of Doom" which he totally insults Islam without any knowledge at all. Google it. You'll find quite few articles on it.

I think we should definitely stay on topic now. If theres anymore questions, we should start using pm's.

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by mellowboy

I think we should definitely stay on topic now. If theres anymore questions, we should start using pm's.

Not yet, this is still on topic, since it speaks to Moussaoui's belief that he is to fight all of us pagans, according to the scripture he quoted, and you clarified for us.

I'm still waiting for your answer: does the verse say "fight and subdue" or not? Stop tap dancing. It should be easy enough to answer. It's not a long verse, and you assure us we don't have it right. Enlighten us.

According to Islam, I'm a pagan, since I don't acknowledge the godhood of Allah and I am not willing to pay the tax (protection money), nor do I wish to enter into any "contract" as it states in verse 1A. I'm not willing to live under Islamic law, and I don't recognize its authority in my life.

Are you commanded to fight me and subdue me, or not? Simple question, really. Moussaoui feels it's his duty to make us all pay, and that's the topic of this thread, so I think the question is fair game.

Answer that for me, and I'll let it go. Why won't you tell us the answer?

[Broke_as_****]

Originally Posted by mellowboy

The reason I posted the first verse is because it explains that theres a mutual contract with non muslims. Meaning that they can't be harmed because both sides agreed to peace. This is during the time of our Prophet, when the non muslim tribes try to push Muhammad (p) out of Mecca/Medina. SO when the non muslim tribes lost, they negotiated for peace and both sides came to an agreement. And yes one of those agreement is that they have to pay jezya..taxes. They pay jezya in order for us to protect them.

As it's defined it is protection from the muslim state itself. You had to pay to show that you were submissive to islam.

Al-Mawardi (the famous Shafi’i jurist of Baghdad), stated in al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah (The Laws of Islamic Governance) that jizya is paid by the enemy in return for peace, and if the payment of jizya ceases, then jihad is resumed

Al-Marghinani, in his classical 12th century legal commentary The Hedaya (or al Hidayah), states that jizya means "retribution", and defines it as "a species of punishment, inflicted upon infidels on account of their infidelity, whence it is termed Jizyat"

Look, Chapter 9 is mostly used by ppl against Islam who tries to make us seem violent on that chapter. They often take things out of context from that chapter.Instead you provided the whole verse but you understand it very little. Thats because you haven't read the begining. Instead, you just kept bickering saying that it doesn't matter if its from the begining or the middle. This is wrong. I will try to explain this later in the post...

Now you are completely wrong. I didn't say it didn't matter where it was from, or what was before and after, I said the shortened version of section 9:29 held the same basic meaning as the entire section.

You also making it seem like we're not good ppl or unfair (which leads to my next explanation)? So correct me if i'm wrong?

You are wrong. I have not shown judgment in either way, I merely quoted a section of the koran, so if what I wrote seemed negative then it's because the passage is negative.

Heres an example : Most Islamaphobes would say this (I got this from another site), "many christians and jews converted to Islam for fear for their lives, and to avoid paying huge taxes to the muslims, and when they got the chance they reverted to their original faith."

There are no records of such reversions to their previous faiths, and if they feared for their lives then why did many convert gradually over the centuries rather than immedietly under the new rule? Moreover, why did so many not convert at all if the fear and taxes were unbearable? Am I right or am I wrong?

You are wrong again, the dominant culture tends to convert no matter what it is. Example: the Chinese invasion of Tibet. Tibet is slowly becoming more and more like main stream China, not because most people in Tibet love them some egg rolls long time but because the Chinese influence is dominate and they have outlawed many of Tibet's traditions, just like most muslim cultures do. After a few centuries of this oppression, domination and censorship most people would have been brought up muslim and wouldn't have known anything else.

The tax non-Muslims pay in an Islamic state is comparable to the tax non-national citizens pay in any state; the differences are that in Islam the tax is lower than that of the dominating group and used for purposes to their own advantage. As such, it is even of a greater benefit to them in opposition to the tax non-nationals pay as citizens in any state.

Again its separation of the two groups and the intent of the tribute, which is to show submission to islam. The text is right there:

until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

It's about the specific intent of the tribute to show submission to islam. If they had not paid it then they would have been considered an enemy and the fighting would commence again.

I did explained it the best as I can. Ok look, for an example, when you read a story for the first time..do you read from the begining or you start in the middle? Well lets say you say , you read from the begining. We all know why we have to start from the begining because so we can understand whats goin on with the story otherwise if you start in the middle, you'd be lost right?? Same goes for watching movies and so on....

And yet again, I asked the simple question about a particular passage. You still have not answered that question. Taken as read in this thread, section 9:29 calls for the faithful to fight non-muslims. We asked if that is what it meant and here we are, still with no answer. Either that is what it means or it isn't. It's a yes or no question. Now you can explain why it means what it does, saying "Yes it does mean that, however it was created out of an extenuating circumstance a long time ago and is not meant to be taken literally".

I would explain it much better in person. To sit down and show step by step and the meaning of Islam altogether. I just can't do it all here on the internet.

This wasn't about the meaning of islam, this was a simple question about the meaning of one phrase.

Here is what I think the problem is: The passage 9:29 is calling for all of the faithful to fight against the non-believers. Except that doesn't fit into a peaceful interpretation of islam so if you come out and say "Yes that is what it means but this is why it's not really what it seems" you think we're all going to ignore the explanation and immediately jump up and down saying "There! He said it! They're all a bunch of murdering cockswagglers!". I can understand if that is the issue but I can tell you, most of us here don't give a rats ass. You've just avoided a straight forward answer for so long it may seem like we're on the attack. All we want is clarification. If means what it has been read to mean then so be it, if it doesn't then you'll have educated that many more people.

[fredjacksonsan]

So it seems that the question being asked to you about interpretation of the Koran, Mellowboy, since you are the resident expert in Islam, is:

Does the verse say "fight and subdue" or not?


Because after a thorough reading, it seems that

1) If you are not Muslim, you are infidel and subject to attack, unless

2) You pay the protection tax.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[mellowboy]

http://www.understanding-islam.com/r...estion&qid=166


Another...


http://www.understanding-islam.com/r...42&sscatid=307


Never said I was an expert on Islam. IF I was then I would be a scholar. The whole point I was tryin to make is that regardless what certain verse you chose to pick, ALWAYS read the whole chapter. Someone like Muscletang (sp) would take things out of context and spread the word like they know what they're talkin about. Im reffering to this thread here ...

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...=493156&page=3


I know for a fact that Broke and anyone else here just search on Islamaphobe sites just to search a certain quote because I know he did not did a search by reading the Qur'an. SO taking a non muslims point of view on Islam is like I believe my friend over my own mother.

[fredjacksonsan]

Mellowboy, I've always respected your position and intelligence in backing it up. But you've completely ignored direct questions, and are now putting links in - possibly so that others may form their own opinions.

Now don't advise me I'm taking the information from the links out of context or only selecting parts to back up a certain position -- rather, I'm taking from your links the information that is pertinent to the questions/discussion:

From your first link:

Originally Posted by first link

Jizyah was a special kind of tax imposed primarily on the rejecters from the people of the book, after their refusal to accept Islam.

Question 2: Are non-Muslims regardless of their military participation required to pay jaziya?

Answer 2: Jizyah can be paid in cash or kind. Those who could not pay Jizyah in cash would normally provide a service in its place. Thus, military participation was not an exempting criterion from Jizyah, but rather Jizyah received in kind - i.e. in the shape of military services.

It seems from this point that the tax is assumed to be imposed, if one does not accept Islam.



And the second:

Originally Posted by second link

On the contrary, if a non-polytheist group - like the Jews and the Christians, for instance - refuse to accept a Messenger of God, their punishment is slightly different from that of the polytheists. As can be seen from the referred part of my previous answer, if a polytheist group persists in rejection of a messenger of God, it is killed as a punishment for its rejection. On the other hand, if a non-polytheist group refuses to accept the call of a messenger, the life of its members can be spared if they accept political subservience and, as a symbol for such political subservience, pay Jizyah. In one of my previous responses to a question, while explaining the nature of Jizyah, I wrote:

Jizyah, according to the Qur'an was a part of the punishment of the non-acceptance of God's truth, after it [that is, the truth] had become manifest through the messenger of God in the Arabian Peninsula (Al-Taubah 9: 29) and subsequently through the companions of the messenger for the rest of the world (Al-Baqarah 2: 143). It may be mentioned over here that this punishment was only for those who were not polytheists by belief. As far as the polytheists were concerned, their punishment for the non-acceptance of God's truth was nothing less than death (Al-Taubah 9: 5). Thus, the Prophet (pbuh) and subsequently his companions imposed Jizyah upon the people of the Book, and other creeds ascribing to non-polytheistic belief, which refused to accept Islam

Keeping the foregoing explanation in perspective, it should be quite clear that the referred verse of Surah Al-Taubah relates particularly to the Ahl-e-Kitaab - the Jews and the Christians - of Arabia, who were the direct addressees of the call of the last messenger of God. The fighting prescribed against this group is a part of the punishment that this group was subjected to, due to its rejection of the Prophet (pbuh) even after the truth had become manifest upon them.

And from this statement, it seems that this scholar points out that the war is because the Jews and Christians did not accept the teachings of Islam.




What right does Islam have to tax others who do not espouse their beliefs? If the Catholic Church, Jewish religion, or any other denomination attempted to "tax", or instead of tax, force service upon or wage war against Muslims simply due to the fact that Muslims did not hold the same beliefs, there would be a huge uprising.


It seems to me that Islam says, "This is the only correct way. Follow it or you will be punished, either by tax, servitude, or war"


Doesn't sound very peaceful to me.