If they had any intent to follow up on that they would’ve taken the peace agreement offered by netenyahu the day before they attacked the peace gathering. (Keep in mind lying to people not of the faith in order to trick them is literally part of the mandate as well, both the original AND updated as well as literal verses in the quran. (See below)
Just because they wrote down something not retarded you’re going to pretend like the behaviour hamas has exhibited is just, what, a fucking accident?
Hamas ACCIDENTALLY flew into a concert of people celebrating peace in the middle east and killed a bunch of people because their gun told them to?
Or maybe the gun itself was secretly controlling these hamas people and hamas isn’t to blame for any of the acts of terror they’ve committed?
Can you please clarify your position here because it seems borderline insane.
Quran
Quran (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.
Quran (3:28) - This verse instructs believers not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves” against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim may appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel friendly.
Quran (9:3) - “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths is with pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway. (The next verse refers only to those who have a personal agreement with Muhammad as
individuals - see Ibn Kathir vol 4, p 49)
Quran (66:2) - “Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths…” For today’s reader, the circumstances for betraying your word are not specified, leaving this verse open to interpretation. According to Yusuf Ali in his commentary: “if your vows prevent you from doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons, you should expiate the vow.” (Presumably, whatever advances the cause of Islam would qualify as ‘doing good’).
Quran (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to “hide his faith” among those who are not believers.
Quran (2:225) - “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts” (see also 5:89)
Quran (3:54) - “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.” The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which means ‘cunning,’ ‘guile’ and ‘deceit’. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)
Hadith and Sira
Sahih Bukhari (52:269) - “The Prophet said, ‘War is deceit.’” The context is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed companions by Muhammad’s men after they were “guaranteed” safe passage (see Additional Notes below).
Sahih Bukhari (49:857) - “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” In other words, lying is permissible when the end justifies the means.
Sahih Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permitted in order to deceive an “enemy.” The Quran defines the ‘enemy’ as “disbelievers” (4:101).
Sahih Muslim (32:6303) - “…he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them).”
Sahih Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad’s insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka’b’s trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered.
From Islamic Law:
Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory… it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression… (See the Permissible Lying section on the Sharia page for more)
“One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.”
notes:
Taqiyya - Saying something that isn’t true as it relates to Muslim identity (i.e whether one is a Muslim or what that means). This is a Shiite term: the Sunni counterpart is Muda’rat.
Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills “it shall be as if he had killed all mankind”) while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of “corruption” and “mischief.”
Tawriya - Intentionally creating a false impression by saying something that is technically true, when knowing that the listener will interpret it in a different way. This practice has a broader application than taqiyya.
Muruna - ‘Blending in’ by setting aside some practices of Islam or Sharia in order to advance others.
I have never said Hamas is free of war crimes. Only refuted your claims that they want a genocide. And please, I’ve heard all the evil Muslim propaganda bits already. You can’t use the Quran to get around international law anymore than they can.
OH, did the law stop that attack on isreal?
Is the law doing anything to prevent isreal committing genocide?
Great, now that we’re both on the same page where the law doesn’t matter until after a conflict is resolved, then I guess we’re stuck back at the muslim brotherhood continuing to commit acts of terror non stop.
Blatantly ignoring the creed with which thousands of people commit atrocities every year as if the law would stop these people who don’t recognize the law as just nor applicable to themselves, how exactly is ‘the law’ doing literally anything to prevent any of this?
Does no one know how to conduct even the simplest act of research?
You know there’s several entire websites dedicated to keeping people informed and you come over here like “but the Muslim brotherhood is an Egyptian group” completely fucking ignoring the entire history of the groups origins and their interactions and cooperation with al queda and hezbollah. Let me guess you think hezbollah isn’t a terrorist organization because they have a few farms?
What the fuck is with the amount of people talking out their ass on these sites? Not even a simple Google search to reveal your opinion is full of ignorance.
So you didn’t know and now you’re trying to bluster your way out by conflating Sunni and Shia groups that wouldn’t spit on each other if one of them was on fire.
Ah, another keyboard warrior that would prefer to push an agenda rather than acknowledge facts of the matter.
Well if you ever decide to pick up a history textbook or actually read up on the history of the area and the groups we’re talking about feel free to hit me up again.
If they had any intent to follow up on that they would’ve taken the peace agreement offered by netenyahu the day before they attacked the peace gathering. (Keep in mind lying to people not of the faith in order to trick them is literally part of the mandate as well, both the original AND updated as well as literal verses in the quran. (See below)
Just because they wrote down something not retarded you’re going to pretend like the behaviour hamas has exhibited is just, what, a fucking accident?
Hamas ACCIDENTALLY flew into a concert of people celebrating peace in the middle east and killed a bunch of people because their gun told them to?
Or maybe the gun itself was secretly controlling these hamas people and hamas isn’t to blame for any of the acts of terror they’ve committed?
Can you please clarify your position here because it seems borderline insane.
Quran
Quran (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.
Quran (3:28) - This verse instructs believers not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves” against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim may appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel friendly.
Quran (9:3) - “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths is with pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway. (The next verse refers only to those who have a personal agreement with Muhammad as individuals - see Ibn Kathir vol 4, p 49)
Quran (66:2) - “Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths…” For today’s reader, the circumstances for betraying your word are not specified, leaving this verse open to interpretation. According to Yusuf Ali in his commentary: “if your vows prevent you from doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons, you should expiate the vow.” (Presumably, whatever advances the cause of Islam would qualify as ‘doing good’).
Quran (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to “hide his faith” among those who are not believers.
Quran (2:225) - “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts” (see also 5:89)
Quran (3:54) - “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.” The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which means ‘cunning,’ ‘guile’ and ‘deceit’. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)
Hadith and Sira
Sahih Bukhari (52:269) - “The Prophet said, ‘War is deceit.’” The context is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed companions by Muhammad’s men after they were “guaranteed” safe passage (see Additional Notes below).
Sahih Bukhari (49:857) - “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” In other words, lying is permissible when the end justifies the means.
Sahih Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permitted in order to deceive an “enemy.” The Quran defines the ‘enemy’ as “disbelievers” (4:101).
Sahih Muslim (32:6303) - “…he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them).”
Sahih Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad’s insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka’b’s trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered.
From Islamic Law:
Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory… it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression… (See the Permissible Lying section on the Sharia page for more)
“One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.”
notes: Taqiyya - Saying something that isn’t true as it relates to Muslim identity (i.e whether one is a Muslim or what that means). This is a Shiite term: the Sunni counterpart is Muda’rat.
Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills “it shall be as if he had killed all mankind”) while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of “corruption” and “mischief.”
Tawriya - Intentionally creating a false impression by saying something that is technically true, when knowing that the listener will interpret it in a different way. This practice has a broader application than taqiyya.
Muruna - ‘Blending in’ by setting aside some practices of Islam or Sharia in order to advance others.
I have never said Hamas is free of war crimes. Only refuted your claims that they want a genocide. And please, I’ve heard all the evil Muslim propaganda bits already. You can’t use the Quran to get around international law anymore than they can.
OH, did the law stop that attack on isreal? Is the law doing anything to prevent isreal committing genocide? Great, now that we’re both on the same page where the law doesn’t matter until after a conflict is resolved, then I guess we’re stuck back at the muslim brotherhood continuing to commit acts of terror non stop.
Blatantly ignoring the creed with which thousands of people commit atrocities every year as if the law would stop these people who don’t recognize the law as just nor applicable to themselves, how exactly is ‘the law’ doing literally anything to prevent any of this?
The Muslim Brotherhood is an Egyptian group. Come on dude.
Does no one know how to conduct even the simplest act of research? You know there’s several entire websites dedicated to keeping people informed and you come over here like “but the Muslim brotherhood is an Egyptian group” completely fucking ignoring the entire history of the groups origins and their interactions and cooperation with al queda and hezbollah. Let me guess you think hezbollah isn’t a terrorist organization because they have a few farms?
What the fuck is with the amount of people talking out their ass on these sites? Not even a simple Google search to reveal your opinion is full of ignorance.
So you didn’t know and now you’re trying to bluster your way out by conflating Sunni and Shia groups that wouldn’t spit on each other if one of them was on fire.
Ah, another keyboard warrior that would prefer to push an agenda rather than acknowledge facts of the matter.
Well if you ever decide to pick up a history textbook or actually read up on the history of the area and the groups we’re talking about feel free to hit me up again.
No thank you.