The Man Who Murdered Ninety-Nine People

[Etagloc]

AS- the truth about you is obvious, hypocrite.

You take the last word, hypocrite.

To me is my way and to you is following your own desires.

Take what is given freely, enjoin what is good, and turn away from the ignorant.
-Quran 7:199

 

[AspiringSoul]

don't be a pussy, daciple said im not a muslim
you say you agree with him

great, now please declare takfir on me (or is it against me? not sure how it goes exactly)
but the end result is i die?

go team isis.

 

[elsbet]

OP misquoted, he began with
Prophet of Allah said:
in the link, it begins
Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri (May Allah be pleased with him) reported:
Prophet of Allah (ﷺ) said

Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri is the first transmitter of this hadith and it would have been passed on (a chain of narration) until it reached Imam Bukhari 2 CENTURIES LATER!!
he would have examined the chain of narration to determine whether it is trustworthy or not. This is highly subjective ie his opinion on people who lived before him. Scholars of hadith btw have to study on a level you can't even imagine. It is probably easier to become a doctor. They take around 6-10 years to memorise not just hadith in arabic and memorise the entire chain of narration...and not one hadith but hundreds of thousands. The guys who make it even into the school have to habe a strong ability to memorise words.
these guys are literally human libraries but not a single one is infallible, they make errors.

I should also add, most christians typically believe the Torah literally too whereas it contains a lot of mythos.
Do you really really think the Genesis creation story is legit ie God creating the heaven and earth and then making the stars later? or for example God literally walking in the garden and LOOKING FOR Adam and Eve? or God regretting the creation of man. Or God asking satan (in the book of Job) where he's been? Even the story of ismael is absurd ie he's meant to be 13 years old, is sent away and his mother lifts him because he's crying (where the story is told like he is a baby). .
This is primitive mythos meant for A particular audience.

On Ishmael...
The story is told that way in the NIV, and possibly in the NLT-- not so in the literal. Hagar is weeping but it is the 'voice' of Ishmael that is heard-- his name means God hears-- so it is pertinent and significant. Hagar is then told to help him up, and take him by the hand.. not carry him.

To the rest, yes... I do. Especially in Job. God is not a dullard, and He often asks questions to which He knows the answers (and He knows them all), during the conversations noted in the bible.

"Brace yourself like a man, for I will question you, then you answer me.

"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if you have understanding.

Who determined its measures, if you know? Or who stretched the line on it?

Whereupon were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone,

when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy..."

God repented.. it does sound odd but from the exposition--

'This is speaking by an anthropopathy, after the manner of men, because God determined to do, and did something similar to men, when they repent of anything...' and he is likened to the potter with the clay by the author.


On the scholars.. it seems there is a lot of material that is not part of the original Quran, and the quran is made to conform to the commentary, instead of the commentary conforming to the quran. The story in the OP sounds a bit like a parable though.. we all have plenty of those.

 

[Etagloc]

don't be a pussy, daciple said im not a muslim
you say you agree with him

great, now please declare takfir on me (or is it against me? not sure how it goes exactly)
but the end result is i die?

go team isis.

Disgusting.

Lies and insults
just more characteristics of a hypocrite, displayed by a hypocrite

not surprising.

It was narrated from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “There are four characteristics, whoever has them all is a pure hypocrite, and whoever has one of them has one of the characteristics of hypocrisy, until he gives it up: when he is entrusted with something he betrays that trust, when he speaks he lies, when he makes a covenant he breaks it, and when he disputes he resorts to obscene speech.”

I said you're a hypocrite- thanks for confirming what I've said and coming out into the open about you being a hypocrite.

 

[Etagloc]

AS, you're probably a human devil

59931: What is meant by “jinn and men” in Soorat al-Naas
What is meant by “jinn and men” in Soorat al-Naas? Are they the devils among mankind and the jinn, or what?.

Published Date: 2011-07-07

Praise be to Allaah.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
Say: I seek refuge with (Allaah) the Lord of mankind,
2. The King of mankind —
3. The Ilaah (God) of mankind,
4. From the evil of the whisperer (devil who whispers evil in the hearts of men) who withdraws (from his whispering in one’s heart after one remembers Allaah).
5. Who whispers in the hearts of mankind.
6. Of jinn and men.”
[al-Naas 114:1-6]
In these verses is the command to seek refuge with Allaah from the whisperer who withdraws, who whispers into the hearts of mankind.
It also tells us how that whisperer is, that he may be from among the jinn or he may be from among mankind. Al-Hasan said: both are devils; the devil from among the jinn whispers into people’s hearts, and the devil from among mankind comes openly.
Qataadah said: among the jinn are devils and among mankind are devils, so seek refuge with Allaah from the devils of mankind and the jinn.
This is the correct meaning of this verse.
Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
The correct view concerning the meaning of this verse is that the words “Of jinn and men” refer to the waswaas or whisper; there are two kinds of waswaas, one which comes from the jinn and one which comes from humans. The jinni whispers into the hearts of man and the human also whispers into the hearts of man…
Similar to their having this whispering in common is the fact that they have devilish inspiration in common too. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And so We have appointed for every Prophet enemies — Shayaateen (devils) among mankind and jinn, inspiring one another with adorned speech as a delusion (or by way of deception)”
[al-An’aam 6:112]
The Shaytaan whispers his falsehood to a human being and the human being conveys it to other humans like him, so the devils of mankind and the jinn both share in the devilish inspiration and in the whispering…
The verse indicates that we should seek refuge with Allaah from the evil of both types of devils – the devils among mankind and the devils among the jinn. End quote.
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Tafseer Juz’ ‘Amma:
The words “Of jinn and men” refer to the whispers that may come from the jinn or may come from the sons of Adam.
The whispers of the jinn are clear, because they flow through the son of Adam like his blood.
The whispers of the sons of Adam often come to a person and inspire him to do evil, making it appear attractive to him until these ideas gain control of him and he acts upon them. End quote.
And Allaah knows best.

https://islamqa.info/en/59931

 

[AspiringSoul]

Ive been called a Shaitan
for quoting the Quran

You couldn't make it up.

 

[Etagloc]

https://www.islamicpreacher.org/2018/03/hidden-sign-of-hypocrite-munafiq.html

 

[mecca]

What the hypocrites conceal is worse than they reveal. So this fits perfectly with Kung Fu's statement that Mecca is not as innocent as she pretends to be. I understood exactly what he meant.

What are you even talking about? All I said was that the story is supposed to teach people about God's forgiveness and it is most likely not a literal occurrence... that is a statement based in logic and reason. And it doesn't even matter if it is literal or not because the message that you are supposed to learn/take away from it is the same regardless.
I'm not a hypocrite and I don't pretend to do anything, I am simply stating my opinions like everyone else on the forum.

 

[TokiEl]

“You (true believers in Islamic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad and his Sunnah) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind”
[Aal ‘Imraan 3:110]
Abu Hurayrah said: You are the best of people for people, you bring them in chains and fetters until they enter Islam. (al-Bukhaari, 4557).

Brilliant. This is like Nazi ideology on steroids.

It is well known that jihad against the hypocrites is not like jihad against the kuffaar, because jihad against the hypocrites is fought with knowledge and argument, whilst jihad against the kuffaar is fought with swords and arrows.
Fataawa ‘Ulama’ al-Balad al-Haraam, p. 1733.

Yes that's what i've been saying all along.


Don't be hypocrites and admit that Islam is an intolerant religion of terror.

 

[EpistemiX]

You have no basis for saying that and you and AS both seem to be munafiqun

Whoa there... read this!

Assalamu alaikum, Could please tell give an answer to the following please. If someone calls a another a person, a munafiq because he lies and sins. And in return, the person replies by calling him a kaffir, who is to blame and which word is the most sinning, a Munafiq or a Kaffir? Jazakamullah kahirun.


All perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad

, is His Slave and Messenger.

Undoubtedly, both parties are guilty, for Sharee‘ah forbade accusing a Muslim of disbelief or hypocrisy with no evidence, as we have previously clarified in Fataawa 84943 and 91677.
Also, it is impermissible to ascribe hypocrisy to a Muslim only because he has one of the characteristics of hypocrisy. This was previously clarified in Fatwa 86428.
In principle, hypocrisy (of belief) is more serious and more dangerous than mere disbelief, which means that the one who accuses another of it might be more sinful. But, at the same time, if the accuser intends only hypocrisy of action on the basis that the person whom he accuses tells lies, then, surely, hypocrisy of action does not take a person out of the fold of Islam.
Allaah Knows best.

http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=126219

 

[Haich]

I did not want to get involved but I have to point out, this jihadi on steroids demeanour of yours Etagolc is not welcome. You are new to Islam and clearly very emotional and have history with other users but don't accuse others of being hypocrites and munafiqs.

I cannot stand newbies going overboard with terminology and I urge you to calm down and stop with all this negativity. Ever since you came back onto the forums, it's really hard to tell if you're being sincere. You've had more religions than I've had hot dinners so just chill, you're making a mockery of Islam and you sound like an extremist.

 

[Haich]

In fact, despite our differences, Muslims on here are pretty consistent and in agreement with our core beliefs. Muslims like Mecca and AS may have views which aren't part of mainstream Islam, but that doesn't take them out of the fold of Islam and they have a right to express their views.

Let people speak and voice their concerns without the haraam police knocking about.

You're creating so much disunity over what? Someone who has different views to you?

 

[Etagloc]

I did not want to get involved but I have to point out, this jihadi on steroids demeanour of yours Etagolc is not welcome.

I am not a khawarijite. I simply have said that AS seems to be a munafiq.

That is simply how it seems to me. I simply disagree with people, nothing khawarijite.

Have I cussed or used foul language or been about personal insults against people?

Yet I have all that thrown against me. I don't even use obscenities and I'm not really even about personal attacks.

I disagree with people but that's it.

I quoted what Daciple said- Daciple merely pointed out a very obvious thing.

I can disagree with someone intellectually and you can be cool with that person. I don't think I'm a bad guy simply for saying that Daciple had a point. I am not saying he's a kaafir. Just saying he has a point. I'm not the first person who has pointed out the point but I'm a bad guy for pointing it out?

The guy has consistently antagonized me and I'm a bad guy simply for responding?

I mean, you're free to your opinion but I am not a khawarijite. I simply disagree with people.

 

[Haich]

I am not a khawarijite. I simply have said that AS seems to be a munafiq.

That is simply how it seems to me. I simply disagree with people, nothing khawarijite.

Have I cussed or used foul language or been about personal insults against people?

Yet I have all that thrown against me.

You don't have to cuss to be sharp tongued.

Just calm down is all I'm saying, it's not good to call people the terms you posted, especially to fellow Muslims. Like you can't just throw those terms about, it's a big deal...

 

[Haich]

The khawarij call everyone kuffars and hypocrites. That's why your demeanour reminded me of them.

 

[Etagloc]

The khawarij call everyone kuffars and hypocrites. That's why your demeanour reminded me of them.

Well I get that, they have a thing where for example if someone drinks alcohol then according to them that person is a kaafir.

That is their methodology.

I am not following that.

My friend was drinking and if you could talk to him he could tell you I was super calm about it and I did encourage him not to do it but I didn't raise my voice at him or anything. I simply encouraged him not to drink in a gentle voice. I also told him specifically that this did not make him a kaafir.

I don't follow that methodology.

Now as far as any intellectual disagreement.... yes I disagree with AS intellectually. There is an intellectual disagreement and sure I've responded to attacks made against me personally. But it's simply an intellectual disagreement. And also an objection to the personal attacks that AS uses- making it about people rather than ideas.

I don't know if you saw where AS very viciously attacked Red Sky for disagreeing with him. Or that disgusting attack he made against a Hindu simply for being a Hindu.

Now obviously I don't believe in swinging at a person. But I believe if a person swings at me then I am entitled to swing back. But this isn't even swinging at anyone. This is simply text on a screen. Simply discussion. Any "swinging" of course is completely metaphorical. AS has "swung" at me so I've "swung" in response. He's been a lot worse towards me than I have been towards him. And he's the one that's gone out of his way to antagonize me- not the reverse.

 

[AspiringSoul]

In fact, despite our differences, Muslims on here are pretty consistent and in agreement with our core beliefs. Muslims like Mecca and AS may have views which aren't part of mainstream Islam, but that doesn't take them out of the fold of Islam and they have a right to express their views.

Let people speak and voice their concerns without the haraam police knocking about.

You're creating so much disunity over what? Someone who has different views to you?

Thing is, there isnt a single belief i hold that is outside of the 'fold' of islam, but is easy to prove in light of what is in the Quran itself.
For example
me: the crucifixion happened
everyone else: that is not in line with the Quran
me: in fact it is even more in line with the Quran because you are only partially reading the verse and without even an awareness of the deeper context of even other stories/verses in the Quran
so here is the context
Doing this has allowed me to see through the many lies told by many muslims and i do not understand the 'why'

So naturally if a christian says
"islam denies the crucifixion" and i say "actually you dont know what it really says"
they will throw all these youtube clips/websites that suggest im wrong and finally say "you are not a proper muslim"

I have discussed that topic far too many times and the more ive delved deeper the more ive been able to grasp. For example in the Quran Allah tells us that He chose the believers (in Jesus) amongst the jews and He caused them to be victorious over the non-believers.
Now how does this play out when muslims think paul was an imposter who destroyed christianity?
The same way muslims say the 4 gospels are false and not the 'authentic' but then in the Quran, Allah tells us the Torah the jews have in their hand...and the gospel the christians have in their hand, is the truth given to them.
that is another thing 'truth given to them'..is not the same as 'truth given to us'
there are various topics that can be presented in alternative ways that causes people to perceive only differences. So you can read the verse in my sig and it makes sense.


Then there are things like astrology...
astrology is something i dont claim to understand but i know roughly the metaphysical system it is based on and certainly believe in that..
for example I talk about Allah's Trancendence and Immanence and how they relate to the passive and active aspects of self-expression ie the feminine and masculine..
this system is also broken down further ie Heaven and Earth in taoist philosophy in that, Allah is active, we are passive and vice versa on both sides, so it is broken into 4, which also breaks down into the 4 elements and 4 humours.
it's something i have been adding to, gradually the more ive learnt. The main reason i try to understand all this is to understand why things occur in this life the way they do, ie it depends on many factors all of which ultimately relate to our own Self.
call it the condition of the nafs.
As it says in the Quran, what we see in this world is from our own self.

The other thing i picked up on was

in the hadith the prophet SAW said the angels communicate with one another (regarding our fate) and the jinns eavesdrop on that information and are chased out of the heavens.

In the Quran the same narrative is told BUT instead of 'angels communicating' it mentions the zodiacal signs (the Burooj..NOT nujoom/stars). This is easily overlooked by muslims, ie burooj in the context really does refer to the constellation, the zodiacal signs.
Going by that it explains why there is a strong belief in plantary consciousness for example the 'spirit of the earth' is meant to be this spirit called Gaeia and historically people have believed each planet, the sun, the moon, stars etc are each governed by a spirit.
THIS usually, is something that comes across as dodgy to us muslims because we're familiar with the jinni aspect behind it. ie people worshipping jinnaat. YET if you look in the Quran it tells us people did worship angels who they made into male/female. So people commiting the wrong act doesnt negate the underlying truth about angels.
ie angels are simply consciousness that cannot disobey Allah. THe other reason to believe in planetary consciousness is if you understand that this world (nasut, the physical plane) is a concentrated form of the internal/mental universe we call malakut..in which each physical thing has a metaphysical counterpart, this is of course where historically polythiest/pagan people have derived their belief in planetary spirits who they've gone onto worship.
Obv as a muslim who has some level of knowledge of tawheed, im not at risk of shirk in that sense, but i can be open minded in my overall understanding of the topic.

Btw usually the jews are the ones who go deeper into this topic, but historically muslims haven't been ignorant of it either.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/468339/Learn-from-your-zodiac-angel-at-times-of-need
Im not endorsing the article btw and certainly do not believe in 'calling on' spirits/angels over Allah...but i do believe in the overall idea behind it, ie angels connected with zodiacal signs and im linking it to you so you get an overall idea of how it's understood.

Saying this does not in any form take me out of the fold of islam even in theory. only low iq, ignorant people would think so because they cant process such simple topics.

@Etagloc a person can politely call someone a kafir and copy paste some of the most filthy sectarian bs going...
and if i response 'oh fuck off'. that makes me a munafiq? shuttttt the fuck up.
im a sinful muslim but a munafiq? munafiqs were the ones who used to only pray to be seen, or pay charity to be seen.......and who didnt show up when they were called to defend islam in war...
the khwarijite were also munafiq because they were takfiri..here you are the one doing takfir ie declaring people as munafiq or kafir.
as for what daciple said to me before, he has pushed that argument because he failed theologically to answer the things i spoke to him about
so he said 'oh no you believe in gnosticismzez and satanzizmsz'
one of the most retarded responses ive had and you believe that.
ffs.
the guy daciple says islam is satanism!!!!
go agree with the kufaar.

 

[AspiringSoul]

Well I get that, they have a thing where for example if someone drinks alcohol then according to them that person is a kaafir.

That is their methodology.

I am not following that.

My friend was drinking and if you could talk to him he could tell you I was super calm about it and I did encourage him not to do it but I didn't raise my voice at him or anything. I simply encouraged him not to drink in a gentle voice. I also told him specifically that this did not make him a kaafir.

I don't follow that methodology.

Now as far as any intellectual disagreement.... yes I disagree with AS intellectually. There is an intellectual disagreement and sure I've responded to attacks made against me personally. But it's simply an intellectual disagreement. And also an objection to the personal attacks that AS uses- making it about people rather than ideas.

I don't know if you saw where AS very viciously attacked Red Sky for disagreeing with him. Or that disgusting attack he made against a Hindu simply for being a Hindu.

Now obviously I don't believe in swinging at a person. But I believe if a person swings at me then I am entitled to swing back. But this isn't even swinging at anyone. This is simply text on a screen. Simply discussion. Any "swinging" of course is completely metaphorical. AS has "swung" at me so I've "swung" in response. He's been a lot worse towards me than I have been towards him. And he's the one that's gone out of his way to antagonize me- not the reverse.

there is nothing intellectual about you. for example if i mention chakras, in a context......towards understanding aspects of islam.
you have just said "show me da chakra in da quran/hadeefs plz"
and now ive shown you 'hadith/sunnah' is never mentioned in the Quran, you have called me a quranite.

i also attacked you (due in part to our previous exchange) when you went all out on @EpistemiX and tried to expose him, moreso because you even tried to expose him when he said nothing to you.........but liked my post where i said a good thing about mufti abu layth!!!
i apologised later to you when i read your 'reasoning' but ive obviously realised your reasoning was an excuse and a lie
you actually really did attack/expose him because he liked my post.
you are absolutely pathetic.

 

[AspiringSoul]

As ive said many times over, ALL humans share the same metaphysical reality. it's only our interpretations that differ
so with that in mind if i talk about the same metaphysical concepts as hindus, it doesnt make me one of them since my way of understanding Brahman and vishnu differs with theirs, but i believe in the underlying metaphysical idea.

likewise if a faux christian says to me "oh that stuff is satanism and gnosticism" they are speaking out of sheer ignorance...and are obviously theologically wrong anyway.
they are not people capable of understanding even the most basic aspects of metaphysics despite believing in the trinity.
for example look at how Philo described The Logos..and compare it to how these type of christians describe it
they arel ike "the lord Jesus lives inside me" whereas in the true context it is the logos that is in us and the logos is something universal and much bigger than Jesus, but incarnated in him.
By saying 'incarnated', colgate also accused me of believing in reincarnation before too.
ignorance is the root of all evil and certainly colgate is a jahil person.

 

[Haich]

Well I get that, they have a thing where for example if someone drinks alcohol then according to them that person is a kaafir.

That is their methodology.

I am not following that.

My friend was drinking and if you could talk to him he could tell you I was super calm about it and I did encourage him not to do it but I didn't raise my voice at him or anything. I simply encouraged him not to drink in a gentle voice. I also told him specifically that this did not make him a kaafir.

I don't follow that methodology.

Now as far as any intellectual disagreement.... yes I disagree with AS intellectually. There is an intellectual disagreement and sure I've responded to attacks made against me personally. But it's simply an intellectual disagreement. And also an objection to the personal attacks that AS uses- making it about people rather than ideas.

I don't know if you saw where AS very viciously attacked Red Sky for disagreeing with him. Or that disgusting attack he made against a Hindu simply for being a Hindu.

Now obviously I don't believe in swinging at a person. But I believe if a person swings at me then I am entitled to swing back. But this isn't even swinging at anyone. This is simply text on a screen. Simply discussion. Any "swinging" of course is completely metaphorical. AS has "swung" at me so I've "swung" in response. He's been a lot worse towards me than I have been towards him. And he's the one that's gone out of his way to antagonize me- not the reverse.

Condemn what you disagree with but don't call other Muslims hypocrites and munafiqs. It's highly highly inappropriate and offensive...