333 References of death to disbelievers in the Quran…333…

>I'm not saying that I am completely unwilling to believe that Islam is evil.

Let's conduct a poll in Darfur.

What is it exactly the Muslims say to their victims when they chop them into little pieces?

Stop oppressing me.
You've insulted our prophet.
I'm a moderate.

Please feel free to add your own...

Yup. That's the propaganda I was talking about. The Darfur conflict is an ethnic conflict between nomadic arabs and non-arab farmers. Both sides have committed great attrocities, and both muslims and non-muslims have been targetted. The conflict has no Islamic basis. What's your point?

[edit on 20-5-2006 by babloyi]

skippytjic,
your comment on organized religion is spot on and based upon...what was it?...let me see...Oh Yeah...empirical evidence, events which actually occurred in history.
I agree.

NeoQuest,
When one jumps to conclusions (your misassumption that you know the reasoning behind another's position) one usually ends up somewhere but it is almost always not on the truth but upon conjecture, unverified and incorrect. Such individuals usually suggest that people with whom they disagree …move to another country since fundie America does not have room for people who…think for themselves. Sad news for fundies but...someone or anyone who disagrees with your position does NOT have to forsake their land of birth and you have no power to condemn them to do so. That's gotta hurt when you're a despot wannabe, huh? Say what? Oh! Republican, sorry!

AlDavisno,
Good point. The amount of human suffering done in the name of some deity is unequaled in its hate born destruction in human history.

Aelita,
As many have pointed out, myself included, most religious people the world over are relatively benign, albeit mostly of a particular religion by accident of birth and therefore mostly insincere. If you are born in Bombay you are almost certainly not…Baptist.
Of course, those of us who criticize fundamentalistic religion are aware that fundies make up but a minority of the big three. However the Shi’ia are a larger minority in Islam than radicals in the other two majors and are responsible for wholesale carnage.

Golemina,
Charades lolol well said.and point taken.

Babloyi,
You apparently assume (without basis) that criticism of Islam stems from mantra like much of what is believed and repeated by fundamentalists. Liberals and other critics of gratuitous violence born of ignorance almost always arrive at their conclusions after contemplation. You have seen Bertrand Russell quoted in here, maybe a few of you ought to read him, if only to ‘know your enemy’ so to speak.

I’ll close with a quote I find applicable:
“The believing mind is externally impervious to evidence. The most
that can be accomplished with it is to induce it to substitute one
delusion for another. It rejects all overt evidence as wicked...”
HL Minken

sayswho (skep by any other name)

The aggressors are CLEARLY Islamic.

And the conflict is entirely fueled ISLAMIC expansion.

If you look at Darfur and come away with 'The conflict has no Islamic basis'...

I've only got one thing to say...

Thank you for proving my point that propagandists/apologists won't accept ANYTHING as evidence of the evil actions of Muslims (my contention), that the bloodlust emanating from Islam is fueled by the Quran (the thread starters contention).

Originally posted by sayswho
Babloyi,
You apparently assume (without basis) that criticism of Islam stems from mantra like much of what is believed and repeated by fundamentalists. Liberals and other critics of gratuitous violence born of ignorance almost always arrive at their conclusions after contemplation. You have seen Bertrand Russell quoted in here, maybe a few of you ought to read him, if only to ‘know your enemy’ so to speak.

Few of me? So....I'm in a group now? The slavering brainwashed spoon-fed religious group ? Your statement is pretty weird. Liberals and other critics? What about gratuitous violence born out of contemplation? I don't get my stuff spoon-fed by the Religious version of Bertrand Russell. I check up on stuff myself AS WELL as reading other's opinions. I pride myself on checking both sides of the issue before making a decision.

I assume criticism of Islam generally stems from something much less than scholarly investigation. It's always either pointing out what "muslims" are doing, or it's misquoting scripture. That is the AMAZING thing. There has yet to be a single instance of scripture quoted that I've seen that hasn't been misused in some way to show negative connatations. Either it's a combination of several translations, to come up with a mix of the worst possible meaning, or it's quoting out of context, or it's making up quotes, or it's combining quotes from 2 different places to make a new meaning.

Originally posted by golemina
The aggressors are CLEARLY Islamic.

It'd more accurate to say that they were born into muslim families.

And the conflict is entirely fueled ISLAMIC expansion.

But then you make this jump. Dunno what to say. They're arabs who want land to graze sheep versus non-arabs who want to farm.

If you look at Darfur and come away with 'The conflict has no Islamic basis'...

I've only got one thing to say...

Thank you for proving my point that propagandists/apologists won't accept ANYTHING as evidence of the evil actions of Muslims (my contention), that the bloodlust emanating from Islam is fueled by the Quran (the thread starters contention).

OK, then. I'll bite. Where is the Islamic basis? Show me where it says "It is better to slaughter the farmer than to suffer his presence while shepherding".
You mention the evil actions of muslims. I never disagreed that many times "muslims" have performed evil actions. How does that translate to "bloodlust emanating from islam"? If GWB does lots of crazy things, does that mean there is "bloodlust emanating from Christianity"? Does that mean that every other christian is also harbouring this "bloodlust"? Does this mean that the christian scriptures are also "harbouring this bloodlust"?

[edit on 20-5-2006 by babloyi]

[edit on 20-5-2006 by babloyi]

>Where is the Islamic basis?

The aggressors are Islamic.

It's an organized campaign.

They're killing people on a massive scale.

Why does the concept of yet another genocidal campaign by Muslims against non-believers bother you so much?

I do have one question...

>OK, then. I'll bite. Where is the Islamic basis? Show me where it says "It is better to slaughter the farmer than to suffer his presence while shepherding".
You mention the evil actions of muslims. I never disagreed that many times "muslims" have performed evil actions. How does that translate to "bloodlust emanating from islam"? If GWB does lots of crazy things, does that mean there is "bloodlust emanating from Christianity"? Does that mean that every other christian is also harbouring this "bloodlust"? Does this mean that the christian scriptures are also "harbouring this bloodlust"?



Which part of this statement contains the thread that when you pull on it organizes whatever that is into a coherent thought?

>Charades lolol well said.and point taken.

Hey SaysWho.

Speaking of charades... What's the accepted signal for mutilated genitalia?

Originally posted by golemina
>Where is the Islamic basis?

The aggressors are Islamic.

It's an organized campaign.

They're killing people on a massive scale.

Why does the concept of yet another genocidal campaign by Muslims against non-believers bother you so much?

Genocide doesn't bother you? What can I say?

Originally posted by golemina
I do have one question...

>OK, then. I'll bite. Where is the Islamic basis? Show me where it says "It is better to slaughter the farmer than to suffer his presence while shepherding".
You mention the evil actions of muslims. I never disagreed that many times "muslims" have performed evil actions. How does that translate to "bloodlust emanating from islam"? If GWB does lots of crazy things, does that mean there is "bloodlust emanating from Christianity"? Does that mean that every other christian is also harbouring this "bloodlust"? Does this mean that the christian scriptures are also "harbouring this bloodlust"?

Which part of this statement contains the thread that when you pull on it organizes whatever that is into a coherent thought?

Very good! What's the accepted signal for ad homonim? So when you can't answer my question you poke fun at it's structure?

Here is a repeat of the example:
George Bush is Christian. The aggressors are non-muslim. It's an organised campaign. They (were) are killing people on a massive scale.
OH NOES! The christians are at it again!

That is how ridiculuous your argument sounds. Hitler considered himself a very devout christian. Thus, the aggressors were christian, it was an organised campaign. The were killing people on a massive scale. Oh dear! Christianity to blame again!

[edit on 22-5-2006 by babloyi]

But why slam islam, when its islamic terrorism that is the problem? (forgot who said this)



Whats the difference? seems to me the two go hand in hand...

Originally posted by skippytjc
Islam poses more of a threat to me and my family right this moment than Christans do.

What threat is that? Terror? Its our government that is terrorizing us for nearly five years now. Our cia and military operations to help our corporations over seas, and our association with Isreal, that is where the problems are rooted.

Be affraid of your car not the people of Islam (unless they are driving) heck I bet christians are more of a threat to you from behind the wheel of their car than terror is. You could have a 9/11 once a month and it wont equal the death rate form auto accidents.

Go to war on our school system that is making our kids stupid, not Islam.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by LoneGunMan]

Originally posted by golemina
In light of your points let me readjust my statement...

It's ALMOST ALL involving Islam vs something or another.

Except, again, the maoist revolution in nepal, the hindu suicide bombers in sri lanka, the juntas in south america, the cabals in africa, or the gangs in east europe.

but to look and see what their real behavior...Better don't you think?

Indeed. And when you look at the conflicts, you find that the religion of the antagonists have nothing to do with it, other than being twisted by them to justify their criminal behaviour.

thetruththeway
When Bosnia was going thru ethnic clensing Catholics whiped out muslims,

FWIW, the serbs were mostly Orthodox Church members, not catholics, though the history of religion in the balkans is apparently more complex than that.

Let's conduct a poll in Darfur.

What is it exactly the Muslims say to their victims when they chop them into little pieces?

And since the victims are muslims, what does that mean about islam? Does it mean that all muslims are part of an evil cabal to take over the world? Or that muslims, like any other human, are capable of disgusting behaviour and good behaviour, saints and sinners.

sayswho
That's gotta hurt when you're a despot wannabe, huh? Say what? Oh! Republican, sorry!

Lets keep the meaningless politicla labels to the politics forum.

Why does the concept of yet another genocidal campaign by Muslims against non-believers bother you so much?

What part of 'the Fur are muslims' aren't you getting? "Not-as-Darl' africans with a large arab component to them are rounding up, murdering, and raping, much-darker africans with little to no arab component. Both are muslims.
Infact as far as I know they're the same sect, not even a shia or sunni split.

What's the accepted signal for mutilated genitalia?

You do realize that thats a pre-islamic custom, no? And that its practice is more related to where a person is rather than to what religion they belong, no? Female Genital Mutilation is practied in and around egypt, by christians and muslims.
Bad people do bad things, and ignorant people do silly things merely because its 'whats common', regardless of whether they scream 'allahu akbar' or 'allehulia'

Iwasnerehere
Whats the difference? seems to me the two go hand in hand

There is a group of seperatists in old ceylon, the Tigers. They are terrorists. They target and kill innocent civilians as part of a terror campaign, and use suicide bombers. They are hindus.

Does this mean that hinduism is a global threat? That the hindu religion has a propensity for extreme violenceand savagery?

In lebanon there was a group of catholic terrorists that targeted innocent civilians in a campaign of terror, trying to establish their own christian state and getting rid of the evil foreign religions, they were called the Phalangists. Does this mean that Catholicism is a problem? That the next time a bomb goes off in Lebanon the proper response is to nuke the vatican?

Politics and the current situation dictate whether a person is a terrorist, not their religion. ANY religion can be used to justify mass murder and terrorism. Even buddhism has been used by incredibly violent emperors to justify their reign of terror or at least 'forgive them' for having done so.

Right now, the middle east is something of a cultural backwater. The empire that ran most of the western portion of it was destroyed, and its provinces became colonies of europe, while the eastern portions' civlization was also later destroyed. Then the europeans gave up their colonies. Then the communists interfered with the politcs of the region, as did the US in response to the communists (or vice versa, depending on your outlook). The result is that the region has been wracked with violent revolutions, counter-revolutions, despots and dictators.

Thats why we see that is has 'bloody borders', just like any region that has a similar history has bloody borders, likesay Africa. Islamist Terrorism is ultimately a result of European Colonialism. That hardly excuses it, but you'd have to be ignorant of basic history and human action to think that Islamist Terrorism can be stopped by only dealing with the 'islam' portion of it. It'd be like trying to stop the Tamil Tigers by fighting hinduism, or the IRA by rounding up Preists. Or it'd be like trying to understand the 100 Years War in purely religious terms. Anyone that wrote a paper for a history class that only looked at the religious aspects of that conflict would've missed at least half of the story.
So why look at only half of the story today???

[edit on 22-5-2006 by Nygdan]

That website is pretty cool, they also rip into the Book of Mormon as well. Skippy, where do you get the references for the number of times say, Death to the Unbelievers in that website?

>the religion of the antagonists have nothing to do with it, other than being twisted by them to justify their criminal behaviour...

Yes, Nygdan, I agree entirely.

The worst offenders are our Muslim, Allah willing, brothers.

Those other conflicsts are valid struggles, but the contention I'm pushing is the numerical count. As in percentage of... Most of the strife is coming from Muslim CAUSING conflicts using Islam as a pretext... Of course, casting themselves as the victims.

The best example of this criminal behavior is, of course, the 'Palestinian'/Israeli conflict.

Sorry, Babloyi, you seem to have drifted pretty far off the field. Come back on to the topic...

>Its our government that is terrorizing us for nearly five years now.
Pretty strong accusation. You got any proof of that LoneGunMan?

Originally posted by golemina
Sorry, Babloyi, you seem to have drifted pretty far off the field. Come back on to the topic...

You're telling me?!

Hey, fair enough. The original topic is about the 333 references to death to disbelievers in the Quran. I checked the website more thoroughly now, and the only reference to "333" I could find was under the topic of "Cruelty in the Quran". That topic has 333 points. Now, going through the points, as I said before, more than 90% of them are talking about what's going to happen in hell, and the fact that the unbelievers have closed their ears. Hey, I admit, hell's not a nice place, but again, as I said before, you'd have to already be dead to be in hell. Hence, it's hardly a reference to death to disbelievers. Also, that list is not only talking about disbelievers.

On the rare occasion that it talks about death to anybody eg. point 12, it says:

"12. Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2

The funny thing is, that verse doesn't have the word "disbeliever" anywhere in it. The sentence JUST before the verse referenced (2:190) says "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress the limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors". Then it goes on to say in the next line (the one referenced) to slay them where you find them, and attack them if they attack you, etc.

Once again, I'll be the first to admit, killing isn't nice, but hey, if someone fights me, I fight back. I don't really see any "Cruelty" in that.



[edit on 23-5-2006 by babloyi]

Geez, why didn't you just say so Nygdan?

Mutilating female genitalia is a custom? I guess that makes it ok?

If memory serves me correctly head-slicing is also a very old custom... right? So that would make it ok also?

I've got to thank all of the Islamist contributors to this thread. It's great to have you'all in this thread to educate us so obviously ignorant Westerners.

Not only are you educating us to the facts that is Islam, but also exactly how defective the Western thought process is...

I'm humbled by your lessons in logic pointing out to me because not every single Muslim on the planet has been associated with the atrocities Westerners are laying at the feet of the Muslims based on their actions, that no no no, we can not say that Muslims are in fact a cult of death.

No, in fact Muslims are such peace loving humans and pacifists, cuz it says so in their Quran, stupid Westerners somehow keep misrepresenting the true contents of the Quran, that it's those evil Westerners... more than likely the CIA... that are really doing all of the killing, maiming, bombing... NOT MUSLIMS!



Does that about summarize the Muslim propagandist/apologist viewpoint?

Originally posted by Nygdan
Also, in Islam, the unbeleiver, he doesn't go to hell for enternity, he goes to something like christian purgatory, where he is punished and purified, and then enters heaven.

Unlike in christainity, where the unbeleivers are personally murdered and exterminated by a Jebus Army, and tossed into lakes made out of fire for all eternity.

It all sounds pretty absurd,divisive and detrimental to humanity as a whole to me -whatever abrahamic sect we're discussing.

How can a specific organised religion's opinion that its followers are somehow more chosen/special/saved/superior to other non-cult members not be inherently bigoted?

Originally posted by karl 12
How can a specific organised religion's opinion that its followers are somehow more chosen/special/saved/superior to other non-cult members not be inherently bigoted?

I'd love to get an answer to this question.

reply to post by skippytjc




very interesting..i dont know why no one has starred or flagged you, but you got one from me...

im sure there are some of those passages that are taken out of context in the sense of jihad..i have heard good explanations for jihad...and ti is not like this "kill infidels" alot of other religious people want you to believe...

but none the less, that is quite a number in regards to death over a belief system...and how sad is that??...over a version of something that no one understands...i find it worthy of the utmost form of pathetic I can think of...

And I have to add it makes me want to do this:

reply to post by skippytjc



Quran is the only holy book that clearly condemns homosexuality.

It means all other religions endorse and condone the endless fun of being gays/bisexuals either openly or in the closet.