cool link bro. you like to suck nigger cock and catch autism by using rusty used syringes you find behind the dumpsters when you getting fucked in the ass by a mexican that's 3 feet shorter than you while you smoke meth?
Name:
Anonymous2016-03-03 8:56
SHT U UP I DOKND THAT OEN TIME TONMYL !!!!! UGGGUHH H GO SCK GILLARY CLINTONTS BUTT HOLE YOI DUMB FUCK LIB TARD. YOU BETTER HOPE THEY TAKE MY GUN BEOFE I SHUOT YU IN YOUR DUMB CUCK RETARET FACE
>>3 faggot ass punk why dont you try to step to me irl and not online and see what happens you cuck faggot ass british nerdgin whale. i'll rip your shit and slap your fucking mother
Who cares what "Nation of Islam" leader says to the infidels? It's called Taqiyya, they are encouraged to lie to non-Muslims if it's in the interests of spreading Islam. Never trust a Muslim.
Name:
Anonymous2016-07-23 15:05
Ha, they're barely even Muslim, bunch of Scientology wackjobs.
Name:
Anonymous2016-07-23 15:42
>>29 That's not what Taqiyya means, it literally translates as "caution", not deception, and refers to denial of religious belief in cases of duress or danger to life or property. It does not permit deception for the purpose of spreading Islam.
Name:
Anonymous2016-07-23 19:02
The best analysis of it I have seen is by Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali, who says: "Speak- ing 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 some- one who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory."
Name:
Anonymous2016-07-23 19:29
>>32 So in other words, it permits lying whenever one sees fit, and prescribes lying whenever it seems nothing else will do.
Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad's men after he "guaranteed" them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).
So how is this different from a "Nation of Islam" leader talking about their greatest enemy, the United States?
Name:
Anonymous2016-07-23 19:34
Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them.
Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true as it relates to the Muslim identity.
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.
Muruna - 'Blending in' by setting aside some practices of Islam or Sharia in order to advance others.
Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later. Some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.
Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.
At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, probably because they were unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).
Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe. Consider the fate of the Jadhima. When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe, one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others believed they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).
Today's Muslims often try to justify Muhammad's murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by falsely claiming that they broke a treaty with their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.
it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible
No, lying is only permissible if you cannot achieve it though telling the truth, which is not the same as
permits lying whenever one sees fit
Name:
Anonymous2016-07-23 20:17
>>33,37 No, it applies specifically to situations where not lying would put one in immediate danger. An individual Muslim might try arguing that lying to spread Islam is basically in the same category, since converting people to Islam might indirectly save the lives of Muslims, but that's really stretching it. It would be kind of like shooting someone and then arguing that it was self-defense, since the person you shot had previously called you some mean names or something.
Name:
Anonymous2016-07-23 20:28
>>39 It also applies in cases of fard/wajib duties.