Islam is an Advocate of Peace, Not Terror

Originally posted by 23refugee
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I must reiterate my concerns that something is fishy. That or ATS is rife with a specific brand of smug condescension.

Oh, I expect there's an attempt at a specific sort of "triangulation" going on between actually 4 points (one of which is silent) concerning a comment I made earlier. I wish 'em luck with that, and truly hope they heed the advice of their silent partner.

They just need to keep me talking, to which I'm obliging. That ought to be a red flag, right there, but some folks never learn.

That would be the "fishy" part. As for the smug condescention, I can play, too, if I've a mind to.

Did you ever play "good cop, bad cop"? I have, and can tell you it's all fun, 'till someone gets an eye put out.

Originally posted by SteveR
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Sorry Nenothtu. Still not finding "all muslims are inherently evil" in my post. I have looked several times, the only place it appears is in your post.

You now owe a personal apology for misrepresenting my views and wasting my time. I will assume you are dignified enough to be responsible for your own words and apologize for the error.

If I were in error, I would.

Since I'm not in error, hell will freeze over first.

I owe you nothing. Not my problem if you insist on playing word games. Let me know if you have any thing of substance to say. Otherwise, I'm done with you. I didn't sign on to teach you how to read your own words.

Again, have a nice day, and thanks for playing!

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by nenothtu
that all muslims are inherently evil, is every bit as one-sided, and blindly polarized, as the opposing opinion that muslims can do no wrong.

It would be. But I think your reading comprehension is lacking. Perhaps you ought to use quotes, or do you just intend to distort my views? Certainly seems that way.

Well, my reading comprehension may be lacking (a common diversionary accusation here at ATS, by the way. Poor form.... poor form...) or, and I believe this is more likely, your writing ability is lacking. Could be your short term memory, too, so I'll refresh it for you:

Originally posted by SteveR

I see you have still not rid yourself of your Islamic sympathies. Islam is evil, by design. It is a thought-virus. There are no ifs, no buts, no epiphanys, no revolutions. Islam is growing and radicalizing each day. Talk of a violent "minority" is not dissimilar to Islamic propaganda. Clearly with such lingering sympathies it still has a hold on you.

Any clearer for ya?

....and how did he miss his own words in that quote?

Seriously, I would be ashamed if I were to post verses and quotes out of context just to push your hate agenda. But it seems you have no shame whatsoever. The devil has done a good job on you. Know this though: you will be accountable for everything you post here. Your arrogance which you have taken as your god will be of no avail to you.

To god is our return. We shall see then who was on the right path and who was not.

Originally posted by skajkingdom
Seriously, I would be ashamed if I were to post verses and quotes out of context just to push your hate agenda. But it seems you have no shame whatsoever. The devil has done a good job on you. Know this though: you will be accountable for everything you post here. Your arrogance which you have taken as your god will be of no avail to you.

To god is our return. We shall see then who was on the right path and who was not.

.....um......

Apparently they don't teach the word "Agnostic" wherever it is you're from? Oh well - doesn't matter. Not the US, UK, AUS, RUS, not worth my time.

Oh yeah - and the "devil" isn't really concerned with this website, believe me. Lucifer's up to something else right now. But if you feel that way - chuckles - keep up your religious psuedo-babble.

No

One

Cares

Originally posted by rival

Originally posted by LittleSecret
reply to post by PunisherSupreme

 

The Quran repeatedly states there is one GOD, the Quran puts a huge importance on that message, and states believe in one GOD.

If we human beings were smart enough, we would have for once in our damn history give this a try. Give it a try, what have you got to loose?

Believe in one GOD, everyone of us, see what the out come is.

If we believe in GOD with such qualities, we will have a perfect system which will allow to finally have the previliage of using the Quran how it is suppose to be used.

Ultimately all those qualities, under one GOD leads to peace.

If anyone is willing to discuss this issue with me I'm deeply interested.

I agree with you completely!

But which God to choose? There are so many.

So I propose we create a new God and a
brand new Religion!

One Tenet: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

No Prophets
No Disciples
No Churches
No Tithes
No Heaven
No Hell

Just lots of signs; in all government buildings, corporate offices, schools,
military war rooms, courtrooms, bathrooms, etc....

DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU

And one prayer, short and sweet, right to the point...

THANK YOU GOD FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE
AMEN

Anybody wanna join my new religion?

I'll join.

Actually, I joined this religion a long time ago.

Islam, peaceful?...

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

These verses are mostly open-ended, meaning that the historical context is not embedded within the surrounding text - as are nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Qur'an.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. This proclivity toward violence - and Muhammad's own martial legacy - has left a trail of blood and tears across world history.

Qur'an (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." There is a good case to be made that the textual context of this particular passage is defensive war, even if the historical context was not. However, there are also two worrisome pieces to this verse. The first is that the killing of others is authorized in the event of "persecution" (a qualification that is ambiguous at best). The second is that fighting may persist until "religion is for Allah." The example set by Muhammad is not reassuring.

Qur'an (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

Qur'an (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding caravans with this verse.

Qur'an (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Qur'an (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').

Qur'an (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.

Qur'an (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

I don't think so.

Source
www.thereligionofpeace.com...

Originally posted by The Blind Watchmaker
Islam, peaceful?...

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Quite so. I don't know how folks miss them.

These verses are mostly open-ended, meaning that the historical context is not embedded within the surrounding text - as are nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Qur'an.

Indeed. Back when I was reading the Qur'an pretty regularly, I was stricken and confused at the disjointed nature of it, I just couldn't understand why there appeared to be no real logical order to the verses. They are not in any sort of chronological, historical, or logical order.

Then, I learned how it was compiled after Mohammed's death. It was collected from far and wide as individual, disconnected verses, and arranged in what they considered logical order at the time, with the 'help' of the reciters, who had memorized parts of it as well as they could, with a peculiar twist concerning the length of the verses, rather than content.

There were SEVERAL different versions of the Qur'an at that time. Nearly all of them were destroyed and lost to history by, I believe, Uthman. His aim was to leave only one, 'authoritative' version, approved by himself.

In effect, no Qur'anic verse HAS a real 'context'. It could be re-arranged, in the modern day, with a slightly more chronological order, and would make some parts far more clear if one knew the historical matrix in which a given 'revelation' was 'revealed' to Mohammed.

That clarity would be nothing less than chilling. When you see how a particular verse is in reaction to a given circumstance or event, it becomes far more... threatening. Unfortunately, that arrangement into chronological order would be met with... stiff resistance... from a great many elements. Even now, scholars have strong disagreements about certain verses, whether they are from the Medina period, the Makkah period, etc.

Re-arranging it into the best guess chronological order, and putting historical footnotes in as to what was going on during the period the "revelation" was given would clarify things immensely for some. That clarification would be scary, too, and would doubtless shake the faith of many who blindly follow it now.

That's why it will never happen. If you think the fatwa against Rushdie's book about the 'abrogated' verses (what sort of deity changes his mind in mid-stream and says 'sorry guys, just kidding'?), it would be NOTHING compared to the fatwa against anyone who tried to put the verses in an actual, historically accurate, context.

They seem to like the way it is now, so they can claim that people are taking quotes out of a non-existent 'context'.

Originally posted by skajkingdom
Seriously, I would be ashamed if I were to post verses and quotes out of context just to push your hate agenda. But it seems you have no shame whatsoever. The devil has done a good job on you. Know this though: you will be accountable for everything you post here. Your arrogance which you have taken as your god will be of no avail to you.

There's that "out of context" charge again. I suspect muslims got that particular charge from certain classes of christians.

The "devil" (Dajjal, Shaitaan, whatever you want to call him), has no handle on me, thanks for thinking about me, though.

I'm not sure when the pursuit for truth became a "hate agenda", but you're right about one thing - I've pretty much got no shame at all. Nothing to be ashamed of.

I agree, we'll BOTH (me AND you) be held accountable for what we post here, as well as what we say ANYWHERE. I have no fear of that accounting. Do you?

My God is not named "arrogance" but thanks for asking - and making assumptions.

To god is our return. We shall see then who was on the right path and who was not.

Agreed. Then we SHALL see. Until then, keep it light.

One other thing - am I to take it from this post that you are preaching several of us straight into Jahannum? If so, it appears that I will at least be in good company!

[edit on 2010/7/7 by nenothtu]

reply to post by The Blind Watchmaker


You know, this is the problem with all threads about Islam here. There could be real potential for discussion about it, but whenever someone from the "opposing" camp chimes in the discussion, they post the EXACT SAME VERSES IN THE EXACT SAME MIS-EDITED MANNER LEAVING OUT BITS INBETWEEN, sometimes with the tell-tale "..." (but mostly even ignoring that).

Almost every thread that these exact same verses come up, I post the actual content of the verses, unedited. The person who posted the wrongly edited, out of context version usually ignores me, or picks on a minor irrelevant point completely unrelated, and then the issue is over. Until a couple days later, when another thread about Islam pops up, and the EXACT SAME VERSES IN THE EXACT SAME MIS-EDITED, OUT OF CONTEXT MANNER.

I used to ask people "Where did you copy-paste those verses from?", in a hope that I could go to the source and ask them to correct it. Now I think it is too late for even that, because unfortunately, this exact same sequence of incorrect verses have spread all over the internet. People claim they've read and studied the Quran, but then they still post these same verses, which gets me very confused.

PS: As for the "order" of the quranic verses, I've heard this argument numerous times, but it is mostly from non-muslims. As any muslim knows, throughout every Ramadan, Muhammad would go from the beginning of the Quran to the end (of how much was revealed until then) during the nightly prayers (a tradition which is followed even today, much to the dismay of some of those who have to stay in prayer for those long hours ).


reply to post by De La Valletta

A bit offtopic, but sorry I took so long to reply.
My avatar is much less interesting. It is just a character from a computer game I played when I was younger.
But what you say is very interesting, and makes one wonder. If from the Roman times to the Middle-Ages humanity lost so much time and progress, who is to say that in the past it was not an even greater amount?

[edit on 7-7-2010 by babloyi]

Originally posted by babloyi

PS: As for the "order" of the quranic verses, I've heard this argument numerous times, but it is mostly from non-muslims. As any muslim knows, throughout every Ramadan, Muhammad would go from the beginning of the Quran to the end (of how much was revealed until then) during the nightly prayers (a tradition which is followed even today, much to the dismay of some of those who have to stay in prayer for those long hours

).

So the legend says. We have no way of knowing, however, what order Mohammed did the recitations in, and what bearing that has upon the Qur'an as we have it today. I'm fairly certain it wouldn't have been as disjointed as it stands now.

As a matter of fact, it COULDN'T have been as disjointed as it now stands. As you say, the recitation was only of the portions which had been 'revealed' up to that point. What we have now is ALL of the verses, and the last ones are jumbled in with the first, in no discernible order. That would have been impossible for most of that period, as they didn't even HAVE the last verses for most of that time.

Edit: pesky spelling error.

[edit on 2010/7/7 by nenothtu]

reply to post by nenothtu

I don't understand. You say there is no order, I say yes, there was, and show why, then again you say there was no order.

In the year before Muhammad's death, he recited the whole thing twice, and they were all the verses. So...yeah. The order was there.

As far as using the excuse "so the legend says, we have no way of knowing", well, if you are going to discount a source simply because it is Islamic....might as well discount everything about Islam, because most of the stuff about Islam is from Islamic sources. Now if you want to talk about the authenticity of those particular hadith (narrations), you should know that the muslims scholars have been very systematic with their research and classification of what is plausible, what is absolutely wrong, and what is authenticated. They have no suspicions against the ones talking about Muhammad's recitation of the Quran.

Do you have any reason to doubt them, other than that it disagrees with the theory you have posited?

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I don't understand. You say there is no order, I say yes, there was, and show why, then again you say there was no order.

In the year before Muhammad's death, he recited the whole thing twice, and they were all the verses. So...yeah. The order was there.

As far as using the excuse "so the legend says, we have no way of knowing", well, if you are going to discount a source simply because it is Islamic....might as well discount everything about Islam, because most of the stuff about Islam is from Islamic sources. Now if you want to talk about the authenticity of those particular hadith (narrations), you should know that the muslims scholars have been very systematic with their research and classification of what is plausible, what is absolutely wrong, and what is authenticated. They have no suspicions against the ones talking about Muhammad's recitation of the Quran.

Do you have any reason to doubt them, other than that it disagrees with the theory you have posited?

Your contention then is that the disjointed 'order' we have the Qur'an in now is the same order as Mohammed's recitations of it?

Am I reading that right?

reply to post by nenothtu

I hope so. Although your calling of it as a "disjointed order" makes me wonder.

Originally posted by PunisherSupreme
Last I checked it was 1 million killed in Iraq by US murder bombers.

Really? Got a source for that 1,000,000 people killed by the US?

And just where are you going to secretly hide that many bodies?

reply to post by nenothtu

"Murder" is such an oft misused phrase, don't you agree? To radical muslims, "killing" infidels is justified, and so not really "murder", eh?

Neno, I don't care about what some maniac's justification is for murder, in Islam murder is forbidden, and death is the punishment for murder.

"Kill them wherever you find them" applies only to infidels, unbelievers - not the People of the Book, right? The People of the Book only become legitimate targets if they refuse to pay the jizya tribute, and make themselves subjects under islam. Then they're fair game.

That is the biggest fail of them all neno, do you know why, because most Christians act like Islamic scholars when they visit AnsweringIslam.com lol.

Do you know the meaning of the verse in context? Do you know the verse before and after? Do you know the chapter?

So then, the choices for polytheists, and all other unbelieving infidels, is conversion to islam or death. The People of the Book are a special case, no? The choice for them is jizya tribute and subjugation, or death - no conversion required for them...

Continuing your argument based on false statement. Nothing to see here, move along. Your first statement needed to be correct for the expansion of your argument to be correct.

The common thread there is the common choice of "death" or dishonor. It's not "murder" if you can justify it out of the Book, is it?

Quran doesn't justify the killing of innocent, murder is murder, the punishment is death. Try again. Run back to anti Islamic sites and borrow some more arguments.

"Murder" is in the eye of the beholder.

And that is related to the discussion because?

A maniac can find thousands of reasons for murder, like the drone attack in Pakistan which has killed almost 800 innocent people.

The excuse for those maniacs are "terrorists".

Kill women, children, rape, torture, destroy, invade, occupy, steal and at the end stamp a "terrorist" sign next to it and expect people to accept it as justification.

Not everyone believes in Western morality standards.

Lets face it all religion is elitist, if you don't follow mine you are doomed.

All religion causes others to suffer, just the same as politics, it is all about rule. Keep the masses in order.

Islam is cruel, women are the underdogs, Christianity was cruel they burnt people at the stake for heavens sake.

Religion is as Marx said (and I am no Communist) the opium of the people.

reply to post by jerico65

Really? Got a source for that 1,000,000 people killed by the US?

Nice try Jericho, not by US, but in direct result of US invasion and occupation of Iraq. But ofcurse the Western empire had good justification for the invasion, and ofcurse the Western empire had good reasons to risk millions of lives. Do you agree?

Some even argue the civil war was orchestrated by the Western empire, there is even evidence ^^.

I think it is an old war tactic, umm what do they call it? Ohhh yes, divide and conquer.

1,033,000 violent deaths as a result of the conflict. August 2007

en.wikipedia.org...

And just where are you going to secretly hide that many bodies?

The same place the Europeans hid their bodies after WWI and WWII.

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I hope so. Although your calling of it as a "disjointed order" makes me wonder.

Oh, no need to wonder. I'm absolutely convinced that there is nothing divinely inspired about it. Not even in a tangential way.

And yes, I said "disjointed". There is no logical order to it, unless one wants to force their own notion of "order" into it as an afterthought. It skips around far too much, and one has to hunt to find this alleged "context" for any given verse.

It COMPLETELY ignores the order the alleged 'revelations' were given in. Even to this day, scholars differ as to which period some verses belong to, and in some cases, that will NEVER be known.

That indicates one of two things: either Allah has a very disorganized mind himself, and so ignored logical progression to 'reveal' these things,

OR

it was just a little too convenient, the way just the right 'revelation' came along to answer any given problem at hand, always to Mohammed's advantage, and then later on a "new revelation" would come along, contradictory to the first, and so Mohammed had to declare the first 'revelation' as having been "abrogated" by the subsequent one.

One would think a deity meant what he said the first time, and wouldn't have to backtrack and change his mind.

My money is on the second possibility, rather than the first.

reply to post by SteveR

No, you obviously don't know. Not that I feel the Crusades have ANY relevance to the points I have discussed about modern Islam, I will however go off topic here and educate you.

1009 AD, Muslim Sultan Al-Hakim gave the order to destroy the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
1079 AD, Turkish Sultan Suleyman says that Christians are banned from Jerusalem.

The first Crusade did not take place until 1096 AD.

Seriously, what does that have to do with what I said?

I said the Crusade is a Christian term, how can you educate me on that? You just reiterated my point.