The Jihad is in full swing, id say were already loosing. Religion of peace?

what's the matter? you guys weren't ready for someone eloquent to stop up your hate speech?

For those who have an open heart and an open mind, this link discusses what the Jizya ispkpolitics.com...

It should be noted that nowhere in the Quran is the payment defined at all in any way, so hate mongers most likely are not able to assess just how unfair and difficult to live with this tax was, as Islamic scholars do not know themselves.

Long story short, serious scholars consider the Jizya quote, once again to refer specifically to that same conflict where all the out of context quotes come from.

TO BE CLEAR, THE WORD JIZYA IS USED ONE TIME IN THE QURAN AND ITS CONCEPT IS NOT EXPLAINED ANY FURTHER AND NOWHERE DOES IT SAY THAT THIS JIZYA MUST BE PLACED ON ANY PERSON BY DECREE OF GOD

:29. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued"

notice how this one verse mentions that people of the book are not exempt from this fight. We can go back earlier and see that God already said it was ok for any person to live their life as a part of any culture or any religion, and in fact gave special regard to Christians and Jews (people of the book). These CONTEXT clues show that this verse is most likely referring solely to the struggle against the meccans.

reply to post by My.mind.is.mine


Nothing in your reply contradicts the fact that later verses from the Koran (when Muhammad was strong) speak of religious compulsion while earlier verses (when Muhammad was weak) speak of religious freedom.

Theologically, this is a huge problem for Muslims becuase Muhammads words are supposed to be divine messages from Allah. Allah is infallible.

Yet, if verses in the Koran contradict each other, how can Allah be infallible?

reply to post by 547000


No, all you have to do is look at my posts in this one topic where I actually look at the quotes in context and have taken the time to make myself aware that the vast majority of them refer to a specific conflict Muhammad's followers had against a specific group of people who persecuted them, and that it was only because of their ongoing persecution and their later having broken a treaty with them that God did eventually did condone violence against them.

You can read the short, chopped up quotes and base your interpretation of the text just on that, or you can read the actual text and understand the context of what's being said.

But maybe a lot of you would prefer the cliff notes version to be the real thing anyway...

reply to post by ollncasino


lmao where does he talk about religious compulsion?

Please exclude any quote that is in reference to the struggle between the Meccans and Muhammad and his followers.

edit:

just thought I'd give you a shout out for your decent argument skills. Love how you switched the attribution of the word "compulsion" to muhammad's later life to better fit the framework of what you wrote.

To reiterate, the word compulsion is used in the text to explain that THERE SHALL BE NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION

Originally posted by ollncasino
reply to post by My.mind.is.mine

 

Nothing in your reply contradicts the fact that later verses from the Koran (when Muhammad was strong) speak of religious compulsion while earlier verses (when Muhammad was weak) speak of religious freedom.

Theologically, this is a huge problem for Muslims becuase Muhammads words are supposed to be divine messages from Allah. Allah is infallible.

Yet, if verses in the Koran contradict each other, how can Allah be infallible?

None of the later verses oppose religious freedom, what are you talking about?? Please give me an example.
The later verses address fighting your oppressors, but nowhere does it say anything about people having to convert. You're sadly mistaken.

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
One thing you seem to forget, is that after the Prophet, his family, and his close companions fled Makkah to Medina, they were STILL persecuted by the tribe of Quraish due to the percieved threat Islam was to their entire way of life. So Muhammad was still a target of the Quraish and other pagan tribes in the region, however he was no longer living among them, so he was able to become strong enough to fight back at the people who repeatedly tried to kill him.

If the Quraish had wanted to kill Muhammad, why didn't they do so when he was in their city?

Muhammad was thrown out of the city for causing trouble.

It was only later when Muhammad started to raid their caravans and kill their guards, that the relationship really soured.

Originally posted by megawattboss
reply to post by 547000

 

No, all you have to do is look at my posts in this one topic where I actually look at the quotes in context and have taken the time to make myself aware that the vast majority of them refer to a specific conflict Muhammad's followers had against a specific group of people who persecuted them, and that it was only because of their ongoing persecution and their later having broken a treaty with them that God did eventually did condone violence against them.

You can read the short, chopped up quotes and base your interpretation of the text just on that, or you can read the actual text and understand the context of what's being said.

But maybe a lot of you would prefer the cliff notes version to be the real thing anyway...

If the scriptures are pure and untainted, why do countries with Islamic law follow such violent interpretations? Are they all ignorant, or is it just that the apologists have a liberalized theology, for example take the universalist churches?

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
One thing you seem to forget, is that after the Prophet, his family, and his close companions fled Makkah to Medina, they were STILL persecuted by the tribe of Quraish due to the percieved threat Islam was to their entire way of life. So Muhammad was still a target of the Quraish and other pagan tribes in the region, however he was no longer living among them, so he was able to become strong enough to fight back at the people who repeatedly tried to kill him.

If the Quraish had wanted to kill Muhammad, why didn't they do so when he was in their city?

Muhammad was thrown out of the city for causing trouble.

It was only later when Muhammad started to raid their caravans and kill their guards, that the relationship really soured.

They couldn't kill him because his uncle, Abu-Talib, was on the high counsel. He was encouraged by his uncle to leave the city, because the counsel was beginning to oppose him, and were preparing to have Muhammad assassinated regardless of whether his uncle objected or not.

reply to post by ollncasino


yoo hoo, over here! you can try arguing with the person that disproved all your fallacies. I know from experience, you
don't get better at video games by always playing on EASY MODE

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
None of the later verses oppose religious freedom, what are you talking about?? Please give me an example.
The later verses address fighting your oppressors, but nowhere does it say anything about people having to convert. You're sadly mistaken.

Really

Qur’an 9:29—

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Don't tell...

The translation is wrong.

No, its taken out of context.

No, I'm not a Muslim so I can't understand it.

Jeez.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by something wicked
Eh? Where are all these constant suicide bombings in the UK? Are you referring to 7/7? As shocking as that was, it was several years ago now.

Check out MI5s website. Not suicide bombings but Islamic plots to kill nonetheless.

Hi, as deplorable as these events are - just as those from other non Muslim organisations are - the OP clearly said 'constant suicide bombings in the UK'. To put that into perspective, how many Irish Republicans or Loyalists have been suspected of or are known to have committed acts of violence in recent years? Seeing as petrol bombs have been thrown at police several times this week in Belfast I don't think we can say Muslim terrorism is the only threat in the UK.

reply to post by 547000


Because all governments are corrupt. Do you look at the places with the most despotic rulers and the largest amount of people practicing genocide as containing folks who are not worthy of being afforded common courtesy, dignity and human decency?

You should add Israel to that list of people then, hypocrites.

reply to post by ollncasino


Amateur #, I already explained this one earlier.

reply to post by megawattboss


What does Israel have to do with whether or not the Koran supports such theology?

Also I'm not just talking about the Middle East but even parts of Africa and Pakistan. Also the "radicals" in western nations. Are all the Imams corrupt or stupid, or are the "moderates" taking a creative interpretation?

reply to post by 547000


Did you read what I wrote? I really hate having to ask that question, but I don't know what else you would like me to write.

You said something to the effect of "If the Quran does not say violent things, why do violent things happen in Islamic countries?" (you took the liberty of ignoring tunisia and Turkey and Morocco as Islamic countries)

My point was, what does this have to do with how you view an entire race/religion of people?

I said, Governments are all corrupt.

I then used your reasoning to further expound on the idea you originally presented. If violent things happen a lot within a country, then the ideology or the basis of the ideology of the people living within that country must be tainted and violent? Am I somehow mistaken in following your reasoning? (that's a rhetorical question ha ha ha)

To the haterz: you guys are straight amateurs, at least the ones that bothered trying to argue their fallacies with me.

To those unsure: Muslims are human beings. That's all you need to know. If you need to be "reassured" that it is ok to accept them for what they are, which is human beings, please refer to my posts in this topic where I pretty much single handedly and without any effort disproved most of the fallacies that are used to pain Islam in an unforgiving and violent light.

Originally posted by something wicked
Hi, as deplorable as these events are - just as those from other non Muslim organisations are - the OP clearly said 'constant suicide bombings in the UK'.

In 2008, 45 Muslims were convicted in the UK on terrorism charges.

www.europol.europa.eu...

Not suicide bombings, but woryying nonetheless.

reply to post by ollncasino


lol it says fight them. That's what happens when you're at war. However, it still doesn't say make them convert.

You argue that religious freedom no longer stands, and that "no compulsion in religion" was being contradicted, and it was not.

reply to post by megawattboss


Except Israel does not deliberately seek out to murder innocent lives and that is exactly the goal of Muslims when they condone acts like suicide bombing and other terrorist activities. They believe that those innocent lives are worth destroying because it is for the common good of their religious beliefs and their jihadist agenda.

There is a stark difference between Israel and the Islamic entities that surround it. Israel is fighting for survival...The Muslims want to see the end of Israel...they won't settle for anything and therefore they will try to do whatever it takes to destroy it. It would be obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by megawattboss

 

Except Israel does not deliberately seek out to murder innocent lives and that is exactly the goal of Muslims when they condone acts like suicide bombing and other terrorist activities. They believe that those innocent lives are worth destroying because it is for the common good of their religious beliefs and their jihadist agenda.

There is a stark difference between Israel and the Islamic entities that surround it. Israel is fighting for survival...The Muslims want to see the end of Israel...they won't settle for anything and therefore they will try to do whatever it takes to destroy it. It would be obvious to anyone with half a brain.

The same Israel that bulldozes homes? The same one that put a bullet through a baby a few years ago? The same one that would have massacred all citizens of Gaza back in 2009 if it weren't for the opposition of the WORLD? That Israel??

reply to post by megawattboss


Muslims are human being, yes, but does the theology support such violence?