It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Islam is an Advocate of Peace, Not Terror

page: 16
43
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


I'm saying believe in one GOD, meaning in one GOD, get it?

I didn't know this was that complicated.

We don't need to create a new religion in order to believe in one GOD.

Let me say it again, "believe in one GOD".

Let me put it in a different sentence to make it easier:
"I believe in one GOD", "there is only one GOD", "there is no GOD but that one GOD", "that GOD has no partners, because there is only one GOD".

Sorry if I sound rude, but I just can't explain it any other ways.




posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 

Hello nenothtu.

I mentioned nothing about divinely inspired. Where did you get that from?
Also, you don't need to hunt for any "context". Reading a surah from start to finish (heck, even if you read a passage from the start to finish), you can get the textual context. Knowing the historical context may help, I suppose, but it can also quite easily be picked up just from reading.

I assume you know such things as "ascending order" and "descending order"? If yes, then you might want to check out the Quran again. The first short surah is called "The Opening". After that, there is a certain order. You do realise that, no?

Knowing the chronological order might be interesting from a scholarly point of view, but for reading the Quran, once again, it is not really necessary. I am sure your thinking is not so restricted that the only "logical order" for you is the chronological order.

As for abrogations, I've said this before, and I repeat here. According to the very text of the Quran (it says so itself), there are no abrogations in it.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Careful they might quote wikipedia.....oops too late.

What many fail to understand is that the largest percentage of the those deaths were caused by Religious infighting between Sunni [Muslim] and Shia [Muslim] Sectarian violence

Anyone notice how the body count swings wildly anywhere from between only 95,888 to 1,033,00? They can't even get the numbers right.

Casualties of the Iraq War



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleSecret
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.


That's obvious.


I, however, DO care about it - especially if I'm the one in that maniac's crosshairs.




"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.


Are you accusing me of being a christian now? Your basis for that is...? Frankly, this accusation is too vague to respond to more fully until you can clear it up enough to be understandable.



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


Surah 2, "The Cow", verse 191.

Yes, I know the meaning in context, unfortunately for your argument. I know the immediate verse context, the overall context of the Qur'an, and the historical context.

BTW, how does one fight in the way of Allah without committing aggression? Isn't fighting pretty aggressive, if you do it right?

Damn straight I know the context.




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.


Rather than attempting to steamroll it without answering the charge, how about an answer, or refutation, or ANYTHING other than a non-response?

Refute me if you can. Don't just ignore it and hope I'll go away.




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?


Because you insist that islam disallows "murder", which it does. The contention here is that islam has a funny definition of what constitutes "murder", which issue I see you trying to skirt.



A maniac can find thousands of reasons for murder


Yes, he can. Then the more entertaining maniacs will seek to redefine "murder", or, more precisely, what constitutes a 'justified' killing, so that what THEY do isn't "murder" in their eyes.



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.


Huh? Just keep right on trying to deflect attention elsewhere, with false charges. Maybe eventually you'll succeed in having folks not notice that you've yet to answer the allegations...



Not everyone believes in Western morality standards.


Well, now, THAT is something we can agree upon!

Edit: to fix misplaced quote tags

[edit on 2010/7/7 by nenothtu]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleSecret
Nice try Jericho, not by US, but in direct result of US invasion and occupation of Iraq.


It wasn't a nice try, but right on the money. The individual that I was quoting blamed the US for a million deaths. And of course, there's no legit source for that wild-ass claim. As usual.

And I love that line of reasoning. "Direct result of the US invasion". Some d-bag of an insurgent plants a car bomb that kills women and children, and it's all the fault of the US. The POS that made and planted the bomb is as pure as the driven snow, because the US "forced" him to kill those civilians.



Originally posted by LittleSecret
The same place the Europeans hid their bodies after WWI and WWII.


And where is that?

Come on! I'm just asking for some evidence. Where would the US hide a million bodies? Where? In the desert? Yeah, that's the ticket!! They trucked them all out into the desert and buried them all. All 1,000,000 bodies. That's why no one can find them; they are hidden in the desert.

And with that line of thinking, you can go as far as saying Saddam hid his WMDs in the desert, right?



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




Huh? Just keep right on trying to deflect attention elsewhere, with false charges. Maybe eventually you'll succeed in having folks not notice that you've yet to answer the allegations...

You haven't prove the allegation so why would I even bother deflecting it?

Here is the context of the verse since you refuse to mention it for us Mr. Scholar ^^

" It talks in general about slaying the pagans who declare wars on the Muslims."

That is the context, the Muslims were at war with the pagans, what would you expect GOD to say? Go find the infidels and give them flowers? lol

Common, give it another crack.

Here is some more verses from the same Chapter which you refuse to add:



2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.




2:192 But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.


Now let's add it all together kids:


2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

2:192 But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.


Sorry neno, by visiting an anti Islamic website you don't automatically become an Islamic scholar, I wish that was true but it is not.

Now once again.

How can you expand your argument when the bases of your argument is false?

You have to prove Islam justifies murder, then continue your argument from there, you haven't done that yet.

Try again.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 




And I love that line of reasoning. "Direct result of the US invasion". Some d-bag of an insurgent plants a car bomb that kills women and children, and it's all the fault of the US. The POS that made and planted the bomb is as pure as the driven snow, because the US "forced" him to kill those civilians.


You're saying a million innocent people didn't die in direct cause of Western invasion?

OK, let me explain this in layman philosophy:

In 9/11 the building collapsed in direct result of the hijackers. Right?

Wait, that was simpler than I thought it would be.

Yes the building kill most of the people, but the source cause was... drum rolls, yes the hijackers.

Now kids, let's connect the dots, yes the civil war killed a lot of people, but the source cause was.... drum rolls, yes the Western hijackers.

Plus the empire is accused of orchestrating the civil war.

and where would they hide the bodies?
WOW, you are still on about that lol



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleSecret
what would you expect GOD to say? Go find the infidels and give them flowers? lol


Do onto others as we would have them do onto us.

Or was it turn the other cheek.




I think that whole "an eye for an eye" bit is so old school.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by nenothtu
 

Hello nenothtu.


Greetings!



I mentioned nothing about divinely inspired. Where did you get that from?


I stand corrected. My apologies. I thought you were defending the Qur'an as a valid religious text, which would necessitate an agreement that it was internally self-consistent, thus divinely inspired as it claims. I misunderstood you. Again, apologies.

Since that's not the case, why is this discussion even occurring?



Also, you don't need to hunt for any "context". Reading a surah from start to finish (heck, even if you read a passage from the start to finish), you can get the textual context. Knowing the historical context may help, I suppose, but it can also quite easily be picked up just from reading.


If it can be picked up so easily just from reading, why is it that even islamic scholars can't place some of the verses historically?



I assume you know such things as "ascending order" and "descending order"? If yes, then you might want to check out the Quran again. The first short surah is called "The Opening". After that, there is a certain order. You do realise that, no?


Yes, I'm familiar with ascending and descending order. I'm also familiar with alphabetical order. The only difference is that the Qur'an was placed in a general order of chapter length, but it DOES have about as much validity as if it had been arranged alphabetically. Good observation.

I fail to see how that helps "context" at all, though.



Knowing the chronological order might be interesting from a scholarly point of view, but for reading the Quran, once again, it is not really necessary. I am sure your thinking is not so restricted that the only "logical order" for you is the chronological order.


Not only from a scholarly point of view, bu also from an understanding point of view. In the end, though, it really matters not. The order is what it is.

Confusing.

No, chronologically is not the only logical order. It would have helped to order it by subject, as well, There are several orders they could have chosen, considering the way it was compiled, but they chose the one they did. I'm sure they had a reason for that.



As for abrogations, I've said this before, and I repeat here. According to the very text of the Quran (it says so itself), there are no abrogations in it.


Indeed, the Qur'an DOES say that! It's either an internal inconsistency

OR

the abrogated verses were removed, and thus really AREN'T there.

Decide for yourself, which it is.

[edit on 2010/7/7 by nenothtu]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleSecret
reply to post by nenothtu
 




Huh? Just keep right on trying to deflect attention elsewhere, with false charges. Maybe eventually you'll succeed in having folks not notice that you've yet to answer the allegations...

You haven't prove the allegation so why would I even bother deflecting it?


Good question. Why ARE you trying to deflect?



Here is the context of the verse since you refuse to mention it for us Mr. Scholar ^^

" It talks in general about slaying the pagans who declare wars on the Muslims."

That is the context, the Muslims were at war with the pagans, what would you expect GOD to say? Go find the infidels and give them flowers? lol


Nope, that's not "context", that's "rationalization". You bring up part of the context later, without acknowledging that. Let's see then...



Here is some more verses from the same Chapter which you refuse to add:



2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.




2:192 But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.



Ah! Now THAT is "context"! Partial context, that is.



Now let's add it all together kids:


2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

2:192 But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.


Sorry neno, by visiting an anti Islamic website you don't automatically become an Islamic scholar, I wish that was true but it is not.


I don't claim to be an "Islamic Scholar", nor do I want to be one, any more.

I DID bring up the first verse you mention, here:




BTW, how does one fight in the way of Allah without committing aggression? Isn't fighting pretty aggressive, if you do it right?


It's in this post:

post by nenothtu

We could analyze that passage, in a fuller context, if you'd like.



Now once again.

How can you expand your argument when the bases of your argument is false?


Because it's not false. It's self-evident, even from the short passage you posted immediately above.



You have to prove Islam justifies murder, then continue your argument from there, you haven't done that yet.

Try again.


No, the thread title is "Islam is an Advocate of peace, not terror", which is the stance you appear to have taken. Because of that initial claim, it becomes incumbent upon YOU to prove the initial claim.

Now, if you insist that I prove the contrary, I have to do no more than point out events... which nearly all here are aware of.

Of course islam doesn't "justify murder", it gets around that by re-defining "justification". How many times do I need to say that before you'll stop running away from it, and claiming that I said the contrary?



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Do people even know what you are talking about before giving you a star


Islam doesn't condone an eye for an eye on nation level, that would mean kill a civilian for a civilian, or an innocent for an innocent.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleSecret
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

Islam doesn't condone an eye for an eye on nation level, that would mean kill a civilian for a civilian, or an innocent for an innocent.



Whose talking about "Nations" are we not talking about "Islam" Maybe this is an East/West miscommunication. Separation of Church and State. Oh wait, this is the Middle East we are talking about Never mind.
continue...



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




Good question. Why ARE you trying to deflect?


I'm littlesecret, you are brick wall, and I'm officially talking to a brick wall.



Nope, that's not "context", that's "rationalization". You bring up part of the context later, without acknowledging that. Let's see then...

? zzzz I think you are too ignorant in regards to this subject for any productive discussion to be held.

Think about it, have you read the chapter? Have you read the whole Quran? Once again, you don't become a scholar by visiting anti-Islamic websites, and surely you won't gain any usable knowledge.



Ah! Now THAT is "context"! Partial context, that is.

? you are truly embarrassing yourself, that is not even partial context, that is the verse before and after which you forgot to read and post. And there is a whole chapter of verses where those two came from. Your ignorance is amusing, I'm studying you ^^



I don't claim to be an "Islamic Scholar", nor do I want to be one, any more.

I DID bring up the first verse you mention, here:




BTW, how does one fight in the way of Allah without committing aggression? Isn't fighting pretty aggressive, if you do it right?


If you read even the verses I brought, you would have seen this:
"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you"



Because it's not false. It's self-evident, even from the short passage you posted immediately above.


I'm still waiting for your evidence.





Now, if you insist that I prove the contrary, I have to do no more than point out events... which nearly all here are aware of.

Events? I guess you are gonna bring actions of Muslims and claim it is evidence. We are talking about Islam not Muslims.



Of course islam doesn't "justify murder", it gets around that by re-defining "justification". How many times do I need to say that before you'll stop running away from it, and claiming that I said the contrary?

Prove your claim.
I'm still waiting, you are just mumbling now, I don't understand where you are coming from. You can make as many accusations as you like, but as far as I'm concerned, you have to prove it. Just like the Western empire has to provide evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

The accuser holds the burden of proof, its not the other way around. It is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.



No, the thread title is "Islam is an Advocate of peace, not terror", which is the stance you appear to have taken. Because of that initial claim, it becomes incumbent upon YOU to prove the initial claim.

Thank you, finally you manned up and trolled away, because seriously this discussion won't go anywhere unless you provide evidence to back your claims up.

You just can't base your whole argument based on a false claim. Thats's just naive.

That being said, I believe Islam is the formula for peace. I already have a post on that, go a page or two back and see if you can find it.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleSecret
You're saying a million innocent people didn't die in direct cause of Western invasion?


And you're saying that the insurgent that makes the bomb, plants it, and sets it off isn't to blame, but the US is?


Originally posted by LittleSecret
and where would they hide the bodies?
WOW, you are still on about that lol


Yeah, I'm "on about it" because you fail to give an answer

In your previous post, you said, "the same place the Europeans hid them after WW1 and WW2." Care to explain that?



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I still don't get your point, explain.

What is your point?

Be careful, will be asked to provide evidence ^^



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 





And you're saying that the insurgent that makes the bomb, plants it, and sets it off isn't to blame, but the US is?

Is this a reply to this:


You're saying a million innocent people didn't die in direct cause of Western invasion?

OK, let me explain this in layman philosophy:

In 9/11 the building collapsed in direct result of the hijackers. Right?

Wait, that was simpler than I thought it would be.

Yes the building kill most of the people, but the source cause was... drum rolls, yes the hijackers.

Now kids, let's connect the dots, yes the civil war killed a lot of people, but the source cause was.... drum rolls, yes the Western hijackers.

Plus the empire is accused of orchestrating the civil war.

ooowie I got nothing else to add lol.



Yeah, I'm "on about it" because you fail to give an answer

In your previous post, you said, "the same place the Europeans hid them after WW1 and WW2." Care to explain that?

OHHH GOSH, they bury them, next you gonna ask me what people use toilet paper for.

You're wasting my time, unless you give me a proper reply you will be ignored.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleSecret
ooowie I got nothing else to add lol.


Well, that's your problem. You can keep on with the line of thinking that insurgents killing civilians is the fault of the US. It doesn't hold any water.


Originally posted by LittleSecret
OHHH GOSH, they bury them, next you gonna ask me what people use toilet paper for.


So, according to you, the US has somehow managed to bury a million dead people in desert?
And without anyone finding out?


Originally posted by LittleSecret
You're wasting my time, unless you give me a proper reply you will be ignored.


Well, that's one way of avoiding a discussion.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleSecret
reply to post by nenothtu
 




Good question. Why ARE you trying to deflect?


I'm littlesecret, you are brick wall, and I'm officially talking to a brick wall.


Yeah, sucks when someone won't allow you to worm out of stuff, don't it?




Nope, that's not "context", that's "rationalization". You bring up part of the context later, without acknowledging that. Let's see then...

? zzzz I think you are too ignorant in regards to this subject for any productive discussion to be held.


One of us may be.

OR

One of us is purposely deflecting and misleading...



Think about it, have you read the chapter?


Yes.



Have you read the whole Quran?


Yes. Matter of fact, I've got it right here next to me, for reference in this "discussion".



Once again, you don't become a scholar by visiting anti-Islamic websites, and surely you won't gain any usable knowledge.


More misdirection and attempted deflection. Where have I referenced any such "anti-islamic" website? Are you putting me BACK on the anti-islamic swing of this pendulum in this thread?




Ah! Now THAT is "context"! Partial context, that is.

? you are truly embarrassing yourself, that is not even partial context, that is the verse before and after which you forgot to read and post.


I'm willing to "embarass" myself in a pursuit for truth. Indulge me.


Do you know what "context" means?



And there is a whole chapter of verses where those two came from.


Indeed, but you seem to have limited yourself to those verses.


Further, there is a whole book that chapter comes from, and a whole body of information surrounding that book.

Context IS everything, isn't it?



Your ignorance is amusing, I'm studying you ^^


That's what I hear. Keep studying. You might learn something.







BTW, how does one fight in the way of Allah without committing aggression? Isn't fighting pretty aggressive, if you do it right?


If you read even the verses I brought, you would have seen this:
"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you".


Yes, yes, that PARTIAL verse has been quoted to death now. Why are you leaving out the rest of it: "but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. "?




Because it's not false. It's self-evident, even from the short passage you posted immediately above.


I'm still waiting for your evidence.


As I am yours, since you bear the burden of proof.




Now, if you insist that I prove the contrary, I have to do no more than point out events... which nearly all here are aware of.

Events? I guess you are gonna bring actions of Muslims and claim it is evidence. We are talking about Islam not Muslims.


Muslims are not islamic now? I have to admit, THAT will be a novel defense!




Of course islam doesn't "justify murder", it gets around that by re-defining "justification". How many times do I need to say that before you'll stop running away from it, and claiming that I said the contrary?

Prove your claim.


Will that make you stop running and squirming?



I'm still waiting, you are just mumbling now, I don't understand where you are coming from. You can make as many accusations as you like, but as far as I'm concerned, you have to prove it. Just like the Western empire has to provide evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.


"Western Empire" this, "Iran" that... you're all over the game board, running from the discussion at hand.

Too much heat?



The accuser holds the burden of proof, its not the other way around. It is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.


We are in a US court of law now? You have no need to support YOUR claims?
Have you forgotten which thread we're in, and what the original claim in the title is?

No matter. I'll remind you again:



No, the thread title is "Islam is an Advocate of peace, not terror", which is the stance you appear to have taken. Because of that initial claim, it becomes incumbent upon YOU to prove the initial claim.




Thank you, finally you manned up and trolled away, because seriously this discussion won't go anywhere unless you provide evidence to back your claims up.


Nice try, attempting to shift the "burden of proof" to me, since you evidently can't prove your own initial case.



You just can't base your whole argument based on a false claim. Thats's just naive.


And you can't counter it. WHO is being naive?



That being said, I believe Islam is the formula for peace. I already have a post on that, go a page or two back and see if you can find it.


Yeah, you wait right here while I go off on your wild goose chase...



[edit on 2010/7/7 by nenothtu]

[edit on 2010/7/7 by nenothtu]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 




So, according to you, the US has somehow managed to bury a million dead people in desert? And without anyone finding out?

The only real discussion, let's hope you don't say my argument doesn't hold any weight lol.

People bury their dead, is that true or not?

Why would the US hide dead bodies, I thought that was the media's job?



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


I just wanted to say that barefoot pregnant women are also advocate's of peace.
But they still terrify me.

My wife just hit me. I'm calling the cops.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by randyvs]



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join