You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
7

[–] Approved 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Well, she's not wrong. The Quran specifically allows the use of property taken during war.

Also, the article's saying "her interpretation of Islam says X" is ridiculous. It's not "her interpretation" of Islam. It's the only fucking way those passages could possibly be read by anyone who knows how to read. There's no fucking "interpretation" involved.

2
-2

[–] Thingsarenotfriendly 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

I guess you get a gold star for being an expert at Islamic Jurisprudence, fucking hilarious!

0
0

[–] Approved ago 

Look, Islam is a pretty easy-to-understand religion, once you get past the few overly-complicated parts.

Rule #1 is that Islam is submission to Allah. You're not in a partnership. It's not some sort of arrangement between you and Allah. You submit. In fact, the religion's name "Islam" means "submission".

Rule #2 is that the rules are written down on paper in black-and-white, and it is a CRIME, carrying the same penalty as being an Apostate (death) to try to do what is called "innovation in religion."

To clarify, trying to re-interpret Islam is classified as "innovation in religion" and, literally, carries the death penalty in any place where Sharia law is in force.

So, it's not like Christianity, where some guy in a badly-fitting suit can form a new congregation and start talking about his "interpretation" of the Bible, make up a whole bunch of theories... and then presto-chango, the holy book that says homosexuals are an abomination and should be killed suddenly has been "interpreted" to mean that gays can be priests now.

Something like that would, literally, get you beheaded for innovation/apostacy in Saudi Arabia.

So, no, this chick is not "interpreting" anything. She's simply stating the bald facts of what the Koran says in black-and-white on paper.