interesting question
My name is Mohsin and my nick name is Shani

air wolf, contra, metal slug, snow bros .. all are old

Here i wanted to introduce a sact in ISLAM, that is AHMEDIYYA MUSLIM COMUNITY

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is a dynamic, fast growing international revival movement within Islam. Founded in 1889, it spans over 206 countries with membership exceeding tens of millions. Its current headquarters are in the United Kingdom.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is the only Islamic organization to believe that the long-awaited Messiah has come in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad(as) (1835-1908) of Qadian. Ahmad(as) claimed to be the metaphorical second coming of Jesus(as) of Nazareth and the divine guide, whose advent was foretold by the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad(sa). The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community believes that God sent Ahmad(as), like Jesus(as), to end religious wars, condemn bloodshed and reinstitute morality, justice and peace. Ahmad’s(as) advent has brought about an unprecedented era of Islamic revival. He divested Islam of fanatical beliefs and practices by vigorously championing Islam’s true and essential teachings. He also recognized the noble teachings of the great religious founders and saints, including Zoroaster(as), Abraham(as), Moses(as), Jesus(as), Krishna(as), Buddha(as), Confucius(as), Lao Tzu and Guru Nanak, and explained how such teachings converged into the one true Islam.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is the leading Islamic organization to categorically reject terrorism in any form. Over a century ago, Ahmad(as) emphatically declared that an aggressive “jihad by the sword” has no place in Islam. In its place, he taught his followers to wage a bloodless, intellectual “jihad of the pen” to defend Islam. To this end, Ahmad(as) penned over 90 books and tens of thousands of letters, delivered hundreds of lectures, and engaged in scores of public debates. His rigorous and rational defenses of Islam unsettled conventional Muslim thinking. As part of its effort to revive Islam, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community continues to spread Ahmad’s(as) teachings of moderation and restraint in the face of bitter opposition from parts of the Muslim world.

Similarly, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is the only Islamic organization to endorse a separation of mosque and state. Over a century ago, Ahmad(as)  taught his followers to protect the sanctity of both religion and government by becoming righteous souls as well as loyal citizens. He cautioned against irrational interpretations of Quranic pronouncements and misapplications of Islamic law. He continually voiced his concerns over protecting the rights of God’s creatures. Today, it continues to be an advocate for universal human rights and protections for religious and other minorities. It champions the empowerment and education of women. Its members are among the most law-abiding, educated, and engaged Muslims in the world.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is the foremost Islamic organization with a central spiritual leader, known as the Khalifa of Islam. Over a century ago, Ahmad(as) reminded his followers of God’s promise to safeguard the message of Islam through khilafat (the spiritual institution of successorship to prophethood). The Community believes that only spiritual successorship of Khilafat can uphold the true values of Islam and unite humanity. Five spiritual leaders have succeeded Ahmad(as) since his demise in 1908. It’s fifth and current spiritual head, His Holiness the Khalifa of Islam Mirza Masroor Ahmad, resides in the United Kingdom. Under the leadership of Islamic Khilafat, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has now built over 16,000 mosques, over 500 schools, and over 30 hospitals. It has translated the Holy Quran into over 70 languages. It propagates the true teachings of Islam and the message of peace and tolerance through a twenty-four hour satellite television channel (MTA), the Internet (alislam.org) and print (Islam International Publications). The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has been at the forefront of worldwide disaster relief through an independent charitable organization, Humanity First.

Now read the teachings of Islam about War: -


The teaching of Islam is different from both these teachings. It strikes a mean between the two. Islam does not teach aggression as did Moses. Nor does it, like present-day (and presumably corrupt) Christianity, preach a contradiction. It does not ask us to turn the other cheek and at the same time to sell our clothes to buy a sword. The teaching of Islam fits into the natural instincts of man, and promotes peace in the only possible way.

Islam forbids aggression, but it urges us to fight if failure to fight jeopardizes peace and promotes war. If failure to fight means the extirpation of free belief and of the search of truth, it is our duty to fight. This is the teaching on which peace can ultimately be built, and this is the teaching on which the Prophet based his own policies and his practice. The Prophet suffered continuously and consistently at Mecca but did not fight the aggression of which he was an innocent victim. When he escaped to Medina, the enemy was out to extirpate Islam; it was, therefore, necessary to fight the enemy in defense of truth and freedom of belief.

We quote below the passages in the Quran which bear on the subject of war.

(1)   In 22:40-42 we have:

    Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged-and Allah indeed has power to help them-Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, "Our Lord is Allah"-And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft commemorated. And Allah will surely help one who helps Him. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty.-Those who, if We establish them in the earth, will observe Prayer and pay the Zakat and enjoin good and forbid evil. And with Allah rests the final issue of all affairs.

The verse purports to say that permission to fight is given to the victims of aggression. God is well able to help the victims-those who have been driven out of their homes because of their beliefs. The permission is wise because, if God were not to repel the cruel with the help of the righteous, there would be no freedom of faith and worship in the world. God must help those who help to establish freedom of worship. It follows that fighting is permitted when a people have suffered long from wanton aggression-when the aggressor has had no cause for aggression and he seeks to interfere with the religion of his victim. The duty of the victim, if and when he attains to power, is to establish religious freedom and to protect all religions and all religious places. His power is to be used not for his own glorification, but for the care of the poor, the progress of the country and the general promotion of peace. This teaching is as unexceptionable as it is clear and precise. It proclaims the fact that early Muslims took to war because they were constrained to do so. Aggressive wars were forbidden by Islam. Muslims are promised political power, but are warned that this power must be used not for self-aggrandizement, but for the amelioration of the poor and the promotion of peace and progress.

(2)   In (2:191-194) we have:

    And fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever you meet them and drive them out from where they have driven you out; for persecution is worse than killing. And fight them not in, and near, the Sacred Mosque until they fight you, then fight them: such is the requital for the disbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is professed for Allah. But if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors.

Fighting is to be for the sake of God, not for our own sake or out of anger or aggrandizement, and even fighting is to be free from excesses, for excesses are displeasing to God. Fighting is between parties of combatants. Assaults on individuals are forbidden. Aggression against a religion is to be met by active resistance, for such aggression is worse than bloodshed. Muslims are not to fight near the Sacred Mosque, unless an attack is first made by the enemy. Fighting near the Sacred Mosque interferes with the public right of pilgrimage. But if the enemy attacks, Muslims are free to reply, this being the just reward of aggression. But if the enemy desists, Muslims must desist also, and forgive and forget the past. Fighting is to continue so long as religious persecution lasts and religious freedom is not established. Religion is for God. The use of force or pressure in religion is wrong. If the Kafirs desist from it and make religion free, Muslims are to desist from fighting the Kafirs. Arms are to be taken up against those who commit excesses. When excesses cease, fighting must cease also.

If Jihad, is the only reason for peoples who hate Islam, then here are some teachings of different faiths about War.


... The question ... arises - Can it ever be right to fight for a faith? Let us, therefore, turn to this question.

The teaching of religion on the subject of war takes different forms... Moses is commanded to enter the land of Canaan by force, to defeat its population and to settle his own people in it (Deut. 20:10-18). In spite of this teaching in the Book of Moses, and in spite of its reinforcement by practical example of the Prophets Joshua, David and others, Jews and Christians continue to hold their Prophets in reverence and to regard their books as the Books of God.

At the end of the Mosaic tradition, we had Jesus who taught;

    But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also (Matthew 5-39).

Christians have often cited this teaching of Jesus and argued that Jesus preached against war. But in the New Testament, we have passages which purport to teach quite the opposite. One passage, for instance, says:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword (Matthew 10:34).

And another passage says:

    Then said he unto them. But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one (Luke 22:36).

Of the three verses the last two contradict the first. If Jesus came for war, why did he teach about turning the other cheek? It seems we have either to admit a contradiction in the New Testament, or we have to explain one of the contradictory teachings in a suitable manner. We are not concerned here with the question whether turning the other cheek can ever be practicable. We are concerned only to point out that, throughout their long history, no Christian people have ever hesitated to make war. When Christians first attained to power in Rome, they took part in wars both defensive and aggressive. They are dominant powers in the world today, and they continue to take part in wars both defensive and aggressive. Only now the side which wins is canonized by the rest of the Christian world. Their victory is said to be the victory of Christian civilization. Christian civilization has come to mean whatever tends to be dominant and successful. When two Christian powers go to war, each claims to be the protector of Christian ideals. The power which wins is canonized as the true Christian power. It is true, however, that from the time of Jesus to our time, Christendom has been involved-and indications are that it will continue to remain involved-in war. The practical verdict of the Christian peoples, therefore, is that war is the real teaching of the New Testament, and that turning the other cheek was either an opportunist teaching dictated by the helplessness of early Christians, or it is meant to apply only to individuals, not to States and peoples.

Secondly, even if we assume that Jesus taught peace and not war, it does not follow that those who do not act upon this teaching are not holy and honored. For Christendom has ever revered exponents of war such as Moses, Joshua and David. Not only this, the Church itself has canonized national heroes who suffered in wars. They were made saints by the Popes.

I am conscious of the fact that, strictly speaking, the word 'terrorism' applies to acts of terror, attempts to cause bomb explosions, and so on. But I do not believe that this is the only type of terrorism the world is suffering from. I believe that whenever repressive measures are taken by governments against their own countrymen to still the voice of disagreement, those measures too should be included within the term 'terrorism' and be as strongly and roundly condemned as any other form of terrorism. I consider all oppressive measures taken by governments against the left or right within their own countries as terrorism of the worst type. When acts of terrorism are directed against foreign governments and take the form of the use of explosives here and there, or the hijacking of planes, such events gain a great deal of attention. World opinion sympathizes with the victims of such callous terrorist acts, as indeed it should. Such sympathies are not merely voiced, but are generally followed by constructive means to prevent and pre-empt such attempts in the future. However, what about those hundreds of thousands of people suffering under the stem and merciless hands of their own governments? Their cries of anguish are seldom heard outside. Their cries of protest are very often muffled by the application of strict measures of censorship. Even if philanthropic agencies like Amnesty International draw the attention of the world to such cruel acts of persecution, torture, and denial of human rights, such events are only mildly condemned, if at all, by world governments. More often than not, these are considered to be internal matters for the countries concerned. Instead of being described as acts of terrorism, they are widely mentioned as government efforts to suppress terrorism in these countries, and to establish peace, law and order.

I am quite convinced that in essence all restrictive and punitive measures taken by a government against its own people to suppress a popular movement or suspected opposition, more often than not, go beyond the limits of genuine legal measures and end up as brutal acts of violence designed to strike terror in the hearts of a dissatisfied section of their own people. Humanity has suffered far more through such acts of State terrorism than through all acts of sabotage or hijacking put together As far as Islam is concerned, it categorically rejects and condemns every form of terrorism. It does not provide any cover or justification for any act of violence, be it committed by an individual, a group or a government.

I must appriciate Obama's address to the nation. He felt sarrow and grieaf for his nation as a father do.

President Barack Obama wept openly Tuesday as he delivered a forceful defense of new executive actions on gun violence, a set of modest proposals to tighten loopholes that likely face quick legal challenges and could be vulnerable to reversal by a Republican White House. Obama offered a new argument to counter gun rights enthusiasts, noting that mass shootings have taken place as Americans have tried to exercise other rights, such as attending worship services or watching a movie. The right to bear firearms is not more important than the right to worship freely or peaceably assemble, he said, and called upon Congress to be "brave enough to stand up to the gun lobby's lies."

“Every single year, more than 30,000 Americans have their lives cut short by guns. Thirty thousand. Suicides, domestic violence, gang shootouts, accidents. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost brothers and sisters or buried their own children," he said, flanked in the White House East Room by family members of victims. In making his case, Obama brushed off criticism that he did not respect the Second Amendment, citing his past as a constitutional law professor. "No matter how many times people try to twist my words around, I taught constitutional law, I know a little bit about this. I get it," he said. "But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment." "We do not have to accept this carnage as the price of freedom," Obama said.

The president also argued that common-sense safety measures used on other equipment should apply to guns as well. "If we can set it up so you can’t unlock your phone unless you’ve got the right fingerprint, why can’t we do the same thing for our guns?” Obama said. If there’s an app that can help us find a missing tablet — which happens to me often the older I get,” Obama said to laughter, "if we can do it for your iPad, there’s no reason we can’t do it with a stolen gun. If a child can’t open a bottle of aspirin, we should make sure that they can’t pull a trigger on a gun.” Despite the "general consensus" for what needs to be done, and support from many gun owners, Obama acknowledged gridlock.

"I'm not on the ballot again. I'm not looking to score some points. I think we can disagree without impugning other people's motives," he said. "But we do have to feel a fierce sense of urgency about it. In Dr. King's words, we need to feel the fierce urgency of now. Because people are dying and the constant excesses for inaction no longer do, no longer suffice. That's why we're here today, not to debate the last mass shooting but to prevent the next one."

(ref: politico.com)

The existence of God looks like an obvious truth to the believers, but to the non-believers it is, as if covered with seven veils. I have gathered some points from every day logic and some from historical prospective to provide a base to prove existence of God to the non-believers. I understand that each point that follows could be a topic for discussion, but I have tried my best to put as much as possible in a limited space.

1.   All RELIGIONS BELIEVE IN GOD
Its an undeniable fact that all the religions on this earth claim to be from GOD. Hadhrat Muhammad (SAW), Moses, Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Baba Nanak and every religious leader taught people to believe and worship GOD. Although all religions have slight differences in the attributes they ascribe to God, but all the religions hold the common view that there is a God who has created this universe. History tells us that even those ancient religions that no longer exist in this world, they also held the view of God, whether they were in ancient America, or in jungles of Africa or in England, or in Java or Sumatra, or in Japan and China or in Siberia or in India. It is an important point that what's the reason for this thought provoking unity among so varied religions? In the ancient times people were not linked together through any means of communication or transport, then how is it possible that people living in isolation thousands of mile away from each other, held the common view about the existence of God? Many of the lands were even not discovered at that time.Even now it is difficult for two persons to completely agree on any issue, then how come this universal unanimity regarding existence of God? All these facts lead us to the only possible conclusion that not only there is a living God but also that God has always manifested Himself through some means to his men to make them believe in Him. Historians agree that if there is such universal unanimity about any issue then there is no reason to disagree with it. Another fact worth noting is that there have been a small number of atheists all the times, this proves that the 'existence of God' is not related to any psychological need of human beings. In this world, one can lead ones life without acknowledging the existence of God, though he will be attempting to close his eyes to the very obvious and clear truth.

2.   WHO ARE THOSE WHO CALL PEOPLE TOWARDS GOD?
If we look at the life of all those men, who have called other people towards God, we find a surprising common thing about all of them, that they were very pious and righteous men. They were the people who were respected in their nations. They were true people, who spent their lives to guide people to the right path. They persuaded people to shun oppressing others. They taught to look after the poor and needy. They fought all their life against the unjust rulers of the time. They were invariably opposed by the people in power at that time, although They were highly honoured and valued for the purity of their character, even by those who later, on the announcement of their claims, became their enemies. It is inconceivable that those who did not lie about men, began suddenly to lie about God. They were the people whose lives were exemplary for others. Whether it is Indian Krishna, or Irani Zoroaster or Egyptian Moses, or Israelite Christ or Punjabi Baba Nanak, or Leader of the righteous Muhammad (SAW) who was given the title of Trustworthy by his nation from his very youth and who challenged his nation that he had led all of his life among them and Could they point out to any single lie or felony in his life? So all these righteous persons who came to this world at different times and places, all of them say one thing in common... "There is a GOD.... There is a GOD...." Not only they claimed that there is a God but also they claimed that He talked to them.
One may find great philosophers or scholars in the world who have done great works, but their work cannot be compared to the work of those righteous persons. Actually if we study the lives of those philosophers we find that no great deeds compared to their lofty sayings. Why is it that these great philosophers were not able to exhibit that righteousness which was shown by people from GOD? The people whose names I have mentioned above, all of them faced great hardships in the life due to their teachings but nothing could lead them astray from the true path. Their killings were planned, they were exiled from their homes and they were boycotted, but they never gave up their beliefs. Why did not they tell lie and relieve themselves from those hardships that were imposed on them just because of their true belief in God. Their lack of interest in material desires proves it that they were selfless people. When such truthful and trustworthy people are saying it in unison, that they have met with God, they have listened His voice and they have experienced his manifestations, then it really leaves us with no doubt. Even in this material world the people whom we know that they are habitual liars, when they go to a court and speak something under an oath, they are believed, then why don't we believe in those righteous persons?

I dont think so that ISLAM itself responsible for terror, or failed to spread the peace. If some people make a group and start fight against the world, then they clearly deny the actual techings of Islam. Islam never preach to kill ANY one due to ANY reason. There are some reasons behind such extreamist groups like Afghan War. Everyonw knows so many millitants join Taliban in the reaction of Afghan war. Same in Iraq, the instability is still exist both countries. So these are the reasons which is somehow true. But still i said EVERY person who killed any other on the name of Islam, not on the right way.

Human nature in itself provides us with a strong inclination towards a belief in God. There are certain sins which human nature doesn't like to get involved in. For instance, relationship with Mother, sister and daughters, uncleanliness owing to certain discharges from body. These are certain things which even a atheist will not like to do. But if there is no fear of a super being, Why not to lie all the times?, why not to steal and commit adultery? What are the reasons that keep them away from these evils? If they do not feel the power of some unseen, then they should do whatever pleases them. Then truth and lie and justice and oppression should be all the same for them. Its only God's fear that is ruling on their hearts. Although their mind does not acknowledge the existence of God but the human nature created by God cannot defy it. So even an atheist at heart holds some view about God and judgment day. While in distress, everybody pray to a super-Being for relief. Why so, if they don't believe in that super-being, whom we call God?

If we deeply study this universe, we see that every thing culminates in a Creator. He is the ultimate and every thing is working under his guidance. If we look at different stages of human birth and growth, we see that as we go backward, we find we are moving towards weaker and weaker stage. Eventually we shall find that the growth starts from a clot of clinging substance. So human beings who themselves start from such a weak stage, how can they be their own creator. So it proves without any doubt that human beings are not their own creator. We see that if we start studying the birth process minutely, ultimately we will find ourselves at the limit of human knowledge. At that stage, all the worldly knowledges will reach their limit and will be totally exhausted about what had actually happened? So that is a stage where divine hand is working. Every scientist have to believe that all the processes of this universe ultimately reaches a point where their knowledge becomes inadequate or insufficient to describe them. Once somebody asked a bedouin that what proof does he has about the existence of God. He replied that if he saw excrement of a camel in the middle of a jungle, he could tell that a camel had passed through that jungle. Then after seeing so many different creatures in this universe, couldn't he tell that there is some creator of them?

The existence of God looks like an obvious truth to the believers, but to the non-believers it is, as if covered with seven veils. I have gathered some points from every day logic and some from historical prospective to provide a base to prove existence of God to the non-believers. I understand that each point that follows could be a topic for discussion, but I have tried my best to put as much as possible in a limited space.

   All RELIGIONS BELIEVE IN GOD
Its an undeniable fact that all the religions on this earth claim to be from GOD. Hadhrat Muhammad (SAW), Moses, Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Baba Nanak and every religious leader taught people to believe and worship GOD. Although all religions have slight differences in the attributes they ascribe to God, but all the religions hold the common view that there is a God who has created this universe. History tells us that even those ancient religions that no longer exist in this world, they also held the view of God, whether they were in ancient America, or in jungles of Africa or in England, or in Java or Sumatra, or in Japan and China or in Siberia or in India. It is an important point that what's the reason for this thought provoking unity among so varied religions? In the ancient times people were not linked together through any means of communication or transport, then how is it possible that people living in isolation thousands of mile away from each other, held the common view about the existence of God? Many of the lands were even not discovered at that time.Even now it is difficult for two persons to completely agree on any issue, then how come this universal unanimity regarding existence of God? All these facts lead us to the only possible conclusion that not only there is a living God but also that God has always manifested Himself through some means to his men to make them believe in Him. Historians agree that if there is such universal unanimity about any issue then there is no reason to disagree with it. Another fact worth noting is that there have been a small number of atheists all the times, this proves that the 'existence of God' is not related to any psychological need of human beings. In this world, one can lead ones life without acknowledging the existence of God, though he will be attempting to close his eyes to the very obvious and clear truth.

I notice you never answered my prior question.  Was Yassir Arafat a Good Muslim?

Oh, and by the way, your Mohammed did not split the Moon.
[/quote]

1- Yasir Arafat isnt a good muslim
2- I agreed, Muhammad (PBUH) did not split the Moon.

Islam and its founder, Hadhrat Muhammad (saw) expressed complete disgust with the people holding these terrorist views and the ones who carry on such acts. The Holy Qur’an says it many times that Allah the Exalted does not love the rebellious people. He does not love those who are unjust, and does not like dissension. As the Holy Prophet (saw) was the mercy for all the worlds, his blessed sayings, and innumerable pure examples shimmering in the historical books and the books about his life show that even the pain of his sworn enemies would make him restless. He possessed the highest caliber of human sympathy, justice, and other moral virtues. So, many fair-minded western intellectuals and researchers have also paid tribute to the excellences of the Islamic teachings, and the full of wisdom sayings of the Holy Prophet (saw), and attested that Islam is a peaceful religion, and the blame on Islam of persecution, and torture is totally false and baseless. Rather, we see that in the current times, the rulers of the Christian governments, who blindly drop bombs on some Muslim countries on the pretext of the terrorism of the few so-called Muslims and extremists, and are involved in the tyrannical acts of destroying the lives of thousands of innocent people, are also forced to state that the views of the people involved in carrying out terrorist activities in the name of Jihad are based on distorted teachings of Islam, and they are defaming Islam, and that Islam’s real teachings have nothing to do with these people. They also accept that the majority of the Muslims are peace loving, and friendly, and they look at the acts of these terrorists with hate, and reject them. But we also see that whenever they get an opportunity, they overlook these differences, and spread the propaganda that Islam is a violent, bloody, and terrorist, and is against peace, and the western media repeats this propaganda with great intensity and frequency. Their behavior is not based on righteousness and justice, and it does not help in the establishment of social peace, rather, without any reason it provokes people and causes dissension.

You are right, these are the misconsepssions against Islam, unfortunatley spread by Mullah (Religious Scholar), just for thier own intrest. Today, the entire world views Islam as an aggressive and terrorist religion. Often, the killing of innocent people, suicidal bombings, and terrorist activities are carried out by people who claim to be Muslims, though in reality, the rebellious actions of these ignorant people have nothing to do with Islam. Rather, the real responsibility for these malicious and rebellious acts lies with the so-called scholars of Islam, who after the age of prophethood and Khilafat, were gravely mistaken in understanding the issue of Jihad, and considered the unjustified killing of human beings by sword a religious duty. These people, because of the distortion of their hearts, wrongly interpreting some of the Mutashabihat (complex and multifaceted) verses of the Holy Qur’an equated Islamic Jihad to rebellion, and associated self-concocted imprudent beliefs to Islam.

Thats the sprit world needed today, nor Islam, niether any other religion in this entire world preach the hatred and killing. This type of people who defame their religion are remain present in each religion.

Hello guys, how are you all. I am thinking about this thread, how long it will take, any suitable end of our posts or it is an infinity

I think love is more importatn then Money, because if you have money and there is no love in your life, its totally wasted. With love, you can cop-up on any misseries and problems.

Hello,
Share please, what is necessary for Happiness of life. Love or Money

Stupid statement mady by him. Everyne has liberty to go outside for any purpose he or she want. The women only restricted in the days of Hajj, in Islam, otherwise she is free to go outside. I also condemnd the incident.