5 Myth about Islam

pewglobal.org...

Page 35! but of course you will say that the compilers have german sounding names........so they might be jewish..............................which means they are probably ZIONISTS!

ABUL ALA MAWDUDI 1

The Problem of the Apostate's Execution from a Legal Perspective To everyone acquainted with Islamic law it is no secret that according to Islam the punishment for a Muslim who turns to kufr (infidelity, blasphemy) is execution. Doubt about this matter first arose among Muslims during the final portion of the nineteenth century as a result of speculation.

Otherwise, for the full twelve centuries prior to that time the total Muslim community remained unanimous about it. The whole of our religious literature clearly testifies that ambiguity about the matter of the apostate's execution never existed among Muslims. The expositions of the Prophet, the Rightly-Guided Caliphs (Khulafa'-i Rashidun), the great Companions (Sahaba) of the Prophet, their Followers (Tabi'un), the leaders among the mujtahids and, following them, the doctors of the shari'ah of every century are available on record.

All these collectively will assure you that from the time of the Prophet to the present day one injunction only has been continuously and uninterruptedly operative and that no room whatever remains to suggest that perhaps the punishment of the apostate is not execution.

answering-islam.org...

Is it acceptable in the Western world for a cult to execute it's members if they try to leave? - obviously not, such a cult would be swiftly banned and its proponents slung in jail.

And that is why Islamicists and their apologisers will never conceed this point no matter how much evidence is amassed.

That is why the media and politicians will never publicly accede to this - because to do so would demand action.

reply to post by Helixer


The pdf I posted the second time is the correct source, you can find the survey data there.
Do you have anything to the point, except for unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and ad-hominems?

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Helixer

 

The pdf I posted the second time is the correct source, you can find the survey data there.
Do you have anything to the point, except for unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and ad-hominems?

Unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and ad-hominems appears to be your specialism. So tell us if you think Muslim eat babies, steal internal organs and run spy networks.

reply to post by Helixer


They dont eat babies, but relatively large part of them holds fundamentalist opinions (majority in some countries), as evidenced by the Pew survey and independent survey done by Indonesian Survey Institute which arrived at similar numbers:
www.lsi.or.id...

And they indeed steal internal organs in Kosovo...

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Helixer

 

They dont eat babies, but relatively large part of them holds fundamentalist opinions (majority in some countries), as evidenced by the Pew survey and independent survey done by Indonesian Survey Institute which arrived at similar numbers:
www.lsi.or.id...

And they indeed steal internal organs in Kosovo...

Whats this Isi survey is about?

reply to post by maung


Yes I have heard that Israelis buy and steal internal organs in Albania, Bulgaria and Romania.

reply to post by oozyism


UNMITIGATED BRAZENLY FALSE NONSENSE.

The founding documents demonstrate otherwise--AND NOT out of context but IN CONTEXT.

Perhaps later someone can post the 109-120 verses in the Koran that exhort such violence as more or less REQUIRED on the part of the faithful.

Then there's the part about lying being quite kosher in behalf of Islam.

BTW, my info comes from a well-informed Muslim who roomed with me for more than a year--as well as a fair amount of reading since.

And Christians and Israeli's do NOT worship the Muslim demonic moon god named allah.

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by imperium1984

 

Myths or no myths, take away muslim nutbag extremists out of the equation and exactly how many terrorist attacks would occur on a yearly basis? Not very many to worry about.

Almost 100 million people have been killed by Atheists, don't blame religion for it please.

And terrorist attacks happen everyday, without Muslims even being involved.

Last I checked a man in Japan went on a terror spree, stabbing everyone who he saw in buses.

It is unfortunate that terrorism doesn't only apply to those with big beards, turbans and long robes.

edit on 18-12-2010 by oozyism because: (no reason given)

Please provide a link to a non-religious, completely non-bias website for proof that Atheists have killed 100 million people? Are you by chance talking about Stalin, Hitler and Mao? If you are then you sir should do some real fact checking on the matter, as Hitler was not an Atheist. Stalin and Mao were, but their religious belief had nothing to do with the political motivation of their actions.

If anything Atheists have saved more people then any religion out there. The simple fact is most scientists are atheist/agnostics. They come up with amazing cures and discoveries to help people with health issues and many other things.

Don't get me wrong either America is just as much of a terrorist nation as any other for the atrocities we commit in other countries. Radical Islamist, are to blame for the way the world views "Terrorists". For the actions of a few have created a world view of everyone who is Islamic must be a terrorist, which is really sad to say the least. Some of the Islamic teachings are incredible and more people should learn of the culture/religion.

But it's the few people that take it out of context the ruins it for the rest (this applies to Christians and Catholics as well) they spread anti-gay messages. blow up abortion clinics and diminish the overall value of said religion.
People get the wrong message and it just spreads like wildfire.

reply to post by GR1ill3d


I'd like to see some documentation that "most scientists are atheists."

IIRC, 75% or so of Nobel Laureates have been of Jewish DNA. Which is way, way, way beyond their proportion of the world's population.

Throw in the fact that for at least 60-110 years, to a large & increasing degree, the globalist oligarchy has bent over backwards publicizing atheists' achievements and squelching or minimizing or ignoring outright those of Evangelical Christians . . . in sphere after sphere . . . to the point that now we're labeled terrorists in our own land.

I find your assertions more than a little absurd compared to the reality I've known for 65 years.

reply to post by oozyism


islam was created because actually they were somehow afraid of arabs, i think. islam was simply a tool to brainwash and dumbdown arabic people as the initial purpose, and then other parts/people in the world.

especially the wahabians, since the best disinfo tool is to mix up parts of true facts with elaborate lies and fairy tales! just look at the al sauds for a second, they dont look very arabian/semitic, do they?

the islamic law is primary a heavy indoctrination through fear. its very misleading and causes its believer to develop a retarded state of mind and the way they think. its blatantly stupid to me, that some people ought to trully believe in this. but yet, islam is the youngest dominant belief, thus it design is most sophisticated in manipulating the human mind, compared to earlier religions.

Originally posted by coyote66
reply to post by oozyism

 

islam was created because actually they were somehow afraid of arabs, i think. islam was simply a tool to brainwash and dumbdown arabic people as the initial purpose, and then other parts/people in the world.

especially the wahabians, since the best disinfo tool is to mix up parts of true facts with elaborate lies and fairy tales! just look at the al sauds for a second, they dont look very arabian/semitic, do they?

the islamic law is primary a heavy indoctrination through fear. its very misleading and causes its believer to develop a retarded state of mind and the way they think. its blatantly stupid to me, that some people ought to trully believe in this. but yet, islam is the youngest dominant belief, thus it design is most sophisticated in manipulating the human mind, compared to earlier religions.

The early muslims were Arabs and they were very brave. They stood up for their religion while the leaders of Mecca oppressed them.
I don't know where you've been getting these facts, please provide me with a source. Your theory has absolutely no proof and is clearly based on foolish assumptions.

Originally posted by RimDaas

 

The early muslims were Arabs and they were very brave. They stood up for their religion while the leaders of Mecca oppressed them.
I don't know where you've been getting these facts, please provide me with a source. Your theory has absolutely no proof and is clearly based on foolish assumptions.

What sort of evidence would you possibly demand from me, if all the facts is being systematicaly and purposely eradicted and replaced with fabricated stories? No, thats what they say in the poem book they called the Qoran. Thats what they want you to believe in! The hijrah, the exodus, all false pseudo historical events refering to the same real event they wanted to symbolize. It was a hidden code of the expell of Babylonians by the invading Persians in the far away past.

Think about it, open your mind and heart. It makes perfect sense. Dig deeper my friend, and you will find the truth. They are all involved in this lies, the Jews, the Roman Catholics, the Wahabiahs. All of them! It was a complex plan to control the Arabs at first, and then the rest of the people who were fooled into believing the lies of Islam.

But Islam also serves as a warfare against the 1st milenia Persians. It was meant to avenge and totaly annihilate the Persian original belief system, Zoroastrianism. The first revange campaign was through Alexander the great, because of Persia sins to force the Babylonian royal bloodlines to flee into exile, in the past. The true event of exodus/hijrah.

Remember the 300 men of Mohammeds loyal moslems in the final war against the Meccan Quraishi? Now compare with the 300 Spartan warriors i the movie with same tittle, against Xerxes Persian army. A coincidence? Or "their" secret code hidden in plain sight? You decide

Be true to yourself, and you should see and understand the real truth and original story of all of this. Cheers, good luck.

PS: read my other threads, i believe it will be interesting to you.

reply to post by coyote66


I can't take you seriously if you tell me you have no evidence and that everything which is in Islamic history has been fabricated.

Originally posted by RimDaas
reply to post by coyote66

 

I can't take you seriously if you tell me you have no evidence and that everything which is in Islamic history has been fabricated.

Yes, it resembles of what you say.

All of the Jewish Torah and Old Testament are also mere fabricated stories. In fact the birth of Judaism was approximately at the same time as Catolicism. Somewhere in the 1st year AD. Cristianity and Judaism were both created simultaniously, so what was writen in the Old Testament (and also the Qoran in that case) are fake histories serving the symbolism of other events.

Nevermind, since this is all I got. But if you would ask me to provide you with some more specific designation of what you really want me to proof you, I might can assist you. Cheers

reply to post by oozyism


Salam Alakium-
Really great and informative topic! It's nice too see someone taking time gently to correct errors and attempt to educate others.

I do have a question though, I think it was myth number 1 where you pointed out the 72 virgin belief is not found in Quran but somewhat written there in Hadith. OK..I am a rather new Muslim (3-4years) and I believe what is written in Quran, though some of it (due to misinterpretation) can be taken many different way's as with the Bible or any book really, but the issue I am finding now is with Hadith, now I understand there are what's considered "strong" or "weak" Hadith correct? Strong Hadith is passed down from Bukhari and Muslim if I'm not mistaken and they are a not only valid but also considered "Sunnah" to the Sunni Muslim Faith. My issue reading them is some of that information seems far fetched or things to do with the era Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) walked on earth and some of it even contradicts the Quran and that is my biggest issue. I've tried discussing this trouble for me with a few people close who are Muslim but they never can seem to satisfy or rectify my concern or they simply brush it off and tell me what I'm speaking is bad actually..

But I take my faith very seriously because I'm absolutely terrified of the punishment from God so this has really bothered me and cast a lot of doubt. Any help or advice would be appreciated. If this is taking it way off topic I do not mind you making a new topic or sending me a message, in fact I'd be very grateful.

Regards,
Maymunah

PS: I just saw that you started this topic in 2010!! I feel embarrassed now LOL Well if anyone knowledgeable and sincere would care to help me out I would appreciate it!

Who cares? Religion is a myth anyway. Give up your imaginary friends.

Bottom line is you guys could argue this all day. When mohammad was in mecca he preached peace and understanding. When he moved to Medina he preached hate and distrust. So if you read the Koran assuming many here have not its not like the bible. The Bible tells stories with context the Koran is statements made. This means in order to understand the context you have to read the hadith. This is the account of the propets actions and the context of the story.

When someone in Islam says something isn't in the Koran they are being purposfully deceptive. What they should do is bring it to open discussion instead of denying the intent of the prophet. This intentional cleansing of the religion opens the door for more radical sects. For example let's look at this.

chapter 8, verse 12: "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."

As you can see this isn't a friendly statement at all. This was during mohammads conquests. Now the argument for Islam should be do previous verses cancel the later statements of Mohammads do to circumstances at the time. I don't have an answer to this but than again neither to Islamic scholars. There are some that say the later verses cancel the earlier ones. Others say that the later verses only apply under specific conditions.

To say Islam doesn't have verses calling for the destruction of others is a lie. But here's the catch there isn't a clear before and after in the Koran either the verses are mixed up. Meaning you can't even say this was before and thus was after. In the bible for example you can. You have the old testament probably the most violent book on the planet. Than we have the new testament and that supercedes the old. For examale an eye for an eye becomes turn the other cheek.

The Koran it's nearly impossible to make this distinction without reading the hadith. But when you do it most defiantly condones violence. Sorry trying to explain this on text is hard but let me end this by saying anyone who says it's not in the Koran is a liar. Since by its very nature you can't just read the Koran you have to refrence the Hadith as well. This is why it took so long for me to study the Koran and also caused heated debates in our religious studies classes.

a reply to: oozyism

It might be in their book, but it doesn't mean diddly. All religions selectively read into their theology what they want at the time. All religions selectively leave out the parts they don't like or that are inconvenient. So yes you are right that they aren't allowed, but no they aren't myths.

a reply to: dragonridr
The misinformation being spread about abrogation means there really should be a thread about it on its own. When people in here talk so authoritatively on abrogation in the Quran, I really start to laugh, because even among the scholars of Islam, from way back to the begins of the idea of abrogation in the 9th century, to today, there isn't really any consensus. At the height of the abrogation craze, there were claims of over 500 verses being abrogated, down to times when there were considered maybe 20 or 5 or even none. There certainly is absolutely no rule of "everything later cancels everything earlier".

originally posted by: dragonridr
The Bible tells stories with context the Koran is statements made. This means in order to understand the context you have to read the hadith. This is the account of the propets actions and the context of the story.

I find this statement particularly humorous, because later on, you quote a selectively edited verse without any context (and I'm not talking hadith context, which I absolutely don't agree is needed, I'm talking the context of the SURROUNDING TEXT), and attach an obviously incorrect interpretation to it, and that isn't even the wrongest part .
You quoted:

originally posted by: dragonridr
chapter 8, verse 12: "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."

If you read the surah properly (there are only 11 lines before that, so it really isn't hard), you'll realise that the verse you quoted is talking about a specific incident that occured during a battle, and not a commandment by God to humans. But hey, you might be lazy, and not want to read 11 other lines, so what you COULD do is add back in the first part of the verse, which for some reason is missing from your quote:

Your Lord inspired the angels: “I am with you, so help stand firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So strike above the necks, and strike off every fingertip of theirs.”

INTERESTING! So the verse is a response to a prayer (from the previous verses) when the muslims were in trouble in a battle, and that was the response. Odd how it was distorted to make it seem like a commandment from God that muslims should strike off heads and fingertips, isn't it? I wonder who did that!

Anyhow, the theory that all the meccan verses were peaceful and medinite verses were aggressive falls flat when you actually look at the facts. Such as:

• The famous "There is no compulsion in religion" is a MEDINITE verse.
  
• "God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in the religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just." a translation of verse 8 from Surah number 60, which is ALSO a medinite verse.
  
• "We have appointed a law and a practice for every one of you. Had God willed, He would have made you a single community, but He wanted to test you regarding what has come to you. So compete with each other in doing good. Every one of you will return to God and He will inform you regarding the things about which you differed." a translation of verse 48 from Surah number 5, ALSO a medinite verse, and doubly interesting in that it contains not a command (that you may claim can be superceded by a later command), rather a statement of how things are, THAT CANNOT BE SUPERCEDED.
  
• Also an important point, there is explicit written record of the contemporaries of Muhammad (and those immediately after his death) following and applying those peaceful verse (by exact reference), and those around them agreeing to that. So even if abrogation exists for some verses, "later violent verses" certainly don't cancel out earlier peaceful ones (even though there are later peaceful ones after those too).
  

a reply to: babloyi


You do realize you said the same things I did bottom line Islamic scholars don't agree about the Koran. Some believe its entirety is relevant others believe parts supersedes others. And that in itself is the problem it allows groups like Isis to pick and chose what they choose to believe. We cant deny that the Koran is used to justify the behavior of groups like Isis. Why is simple there are contradictions in the Koran without historical context. And these distortions are easily used to sway the masses. One of the problems I see is Mohammad muslims are told he is the perfect example. But he was living in different times with different circumstances. You cant easily say he did this and it means we should do the same. but that's another story.