Is Islam a genuine threat?, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times

reply posted on 4-9-2011 @ 05:52 AM by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

The Christian Religion has forced themselves upon the world.... I have provided sources.

But I agree. I have just expressed my opinion that no religions are equal and CURRENTLY, in some religions, extremism is more prevalent, and in some it is less, with Islam being the biggest threat. I am not a christian, nor do I desire to defend their ideology or downplay the threat they possess.

Okay, now this... I can agree with.... I think I misunderstood what you were getting at before.... With all due respect, you did come across, just for a moment,as a Christian trying to defend their ideology. But again, I think that is because I misunderstood what you were getting at...

I will give you that while yes, there are extremists in every religion... There are some, that appear to have more extremists currently, than others...

I think most major religions have had their fair share of time, being the one with the most extremists.... So for what that is worth.

But at the same time... We also agree... Most people in every religion are truly nice people....

reply posted on 4-9-2011 @ 05:53 AM by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by Maslo

It was no edit, the edit was to add the word "psychopathic". Not that I care whether you believe me..
edit on 4/9/11 by Maslo because: edit comment

Hey, fair enough... I believe you. Whether you care or not

I very easily could have missed it. I work nights and just got off about an hour ago.

For what it is worth, I apologize for my mistake as far as that goes.

Side note, I always like conversations like this. Where I think we disagree, then it turns out we are actually on the same page, so to speak.... So thanks for the conversation so far.

I actually usually try to stay away from threads dealing with Religion or politics ( For obvious reason). It seems really hard to have an intelligent conversation with some one with out people just flipping out and getting angry. So again, thanks for a great conversation thus far.

edit on 4-9-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-9-2011 @ 05:57 AM by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood

Really all one needs to know about Islam is that you get killed if you leave or criticise it - an inconvenient fact that the appeasers will never address!

I have a friend who converted from Islam to Christianity. She is alive and well. Never even a threat to her life...

Now yes, there have been plenty of cases of people being killed for trying to leave the religion.... But to say it happens every time, is not true. At least in one case.

edit on 4-9-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-9-2011 @ 05:58 AM by nearlyfabled

reply to post by JohhnyBGood

You claim that individuals are killed if they leave Islam. This is false. corporal punishment for this occurs only after numerous steps have been taken. These include consulting the individual, asking him to leave the city, not preach against Islam, etc. ONLY after all this has been done, and if the individual continues to preach against Islam is this measure taken. If a person does not want to be a Muslim, but will pay the Jizyah, they are entitled to this, at their own loss.

Once again, Islam has no problem with disbelievers. It's their own problem and their own loss if they do not wish to follow our faith. So long as they obey the law - like in ANY other country - they won't be touched.

reply posted on 4-9-2011 @ 06:02 AM by catwhoknowsplusone

reply to post by nearlyfabled

Hi near,

Yes, I am talking about people willing to die for their beliefs.

I am talking about people who would rather destroy other people than live.

I am talking about totally brainwashed insane lunatics who think they will get a virgin in the afterlife.

What these people will get is the eternal fires of hell.

reply posted on 4-9-2011 @ 06:02 AM by The Old American

Originally posted by nearlyfabled

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by Terrorist
reply to post by petrus4

Christianity is still probably a bigger threat at the moment. The Islamophobia that's being cultivated in the West is all about political opportunism and fear-mongering. However, to be fair, while Islamist (note the "ist" at the end of "Islamist," as opposed to "Islamic") extremists are exploiting Islam, it is an exceptionally easy religion to exploit. The biggest perversion of the creed I would say is the distorted concept of "Jihad." The spiritual and political implications of the term have really changed immensely over time, and I advise you look into that, it's surprising.
If Islam may be a threat, it isn't the biggest to the world and even US national security.

I was just thinking the other day that I ought to go cut some heads off! Maybe bomb a couple of markets. I don't think I've stoned a virgin to death for being raped in a while. Decisions, decisions.

/TOA

I can't even tell if you're being sarcastic or not, because none of the things you mentioned are Islamic..

Unfortunately, some Muslims think they are practicing Islam with full faith and support of Allah when they do those things. Not to mention there are clear instructions on when to perform atrocities in their holy book. There are also those that choose to ignore those edicts and hold to the tenets of peace.

But which is right, according to their faith? Are the people that commit atrocities in the name of Allah extremists, or are they completely following their faith to the letter and the peace-loving Muslims are the ones going to hell because they are not strictly following their faith?

I know what I want to be true, but as I am not a Muslim, I can only sit here and armchair quarterback it. And unless you are a Muslim, that's all you can do, too.

/TOA

reply posted on 4-9-2011 @ 06:11 AM by Maslo

reply to post by gimme_some_truth

For what it is worth, I apologize for my mistake as far as that goes. Side note, I always like conversations like this. Where I think we disagree, then it turns out we are actually on the same page, so to speak.... So thanks for the conversation so far.

Ok, apology accepted. And indeed, we seem to be more or less on the same page in the end.

reply posted on 4-9-2011 @ 06:11 AM by nearlyfabled

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by nearlyfabled

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by Terrorist
reply to post by petrus4

Christianity is still probably a bigger threat at the moment. The Islamophobia that's being cultivated in the West is all about political opportunism and fear-mongering. However, to be fair, while Islamist (note the "ist" at the end of "Islamist," as opposed to "Islamic") extremists are exploiting Islam, it is an exceptionally easy religion to exploit. The biggest perversion of the creed I would say is the distorted concept of "Jihad." The spiritual and political implications of the term have really changed immensely over time, and I advise you look into that, it's surprising.
If Islam may be a threat, it isn't the biggest to the world and even US national security.

I was just thinking the other day that I ought to go cut some heads off! Maybe bomb a couple of markets. I don't think I've stoned a virgin to death for being raped in a while. Decisions, decisions.

/TOA

I can't even tell if you're being sarcastic or not, because none of the things you mentioned are Islamic..

Unfortunately, some Muslims think they are practicing Islam with full faith and support of Allah when they do those things. Not to mention there are clear instructions on when to perform atrocities in their holy book. There are also those that choose to ignore those edicts and hold to the tenets of peace.

But which is right, according to their faith? Are the people that commit atrocities in the name of Allah extremists, or are they completely following their faith to the letter and the peace-loving Muslims are the ones going to hell because they are not strictly following their faith?

I know what I want to be true, but as I am not a Muslim, I can only sit here and armchair quarterback it. And unless you are a Muslim, that's all you can do, too.

/TOA

I am a Muslim, I will tell you what I know to the best of my ability.
The Qur'an does absolutely explain when to make war, the rules of war, who's the enemy in war, how to distribute the booty of war. most definitely. The Qur'an is not peaceful when it comes to armies attacking Muslims. That would be lunatic.
As far as 'beheading civilians, bombing civilians, threatening civilians', this has nothing to do with Islam. Civilians are strictly given protection if they have nothing to do with war, no matter what part of the world they are in.

reply posted on 4-9-2011 @ 06:14 AM by nearlyfabled

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
reply to post by nearlyfabled

Hi near,

Yes, I am talking about people willing to die for their beliefs.

I am talking about people who would rather destroy other people than live.

I am talking about totally brainwashed insane lunatics who think they will get a virgin in the afterlife.

What these people will get is the eternal fires of hell.

So what if someone is willing to die for their beliefs. What do you have to say about american soldiers?? aren't they putting themselves in the line of fire in the name of patriotism?
I don't think anyone with a sane mind could possibly say that America would rather spare life than shed it. Look at all the wars they stick their nose in for a cheap profit.
And wouldn't you like a virgin in the afterlife?

reply posted on 4-9-2011 @ 06:21 AM by Maslo

reply to post by nearlyfabled

Is it true that true Islam says that:
1. punishment for speaking against Islam or Muhhamad is death
2. punishment for adultery in marriage is death by stoning

Also, is homosexuality allowed in Islamic state? Can women leave the house and travel alone in Islamic state?

I am asking because there is a lot of disinformation going on, and evem muslims seem to be divided on some of these things..

edit on 4/9/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-9-2011 @ 06:27 AM by drivers1492

Originally posted by nearlyfabled
reply to post by JohhnyBGood

You claim that individuals are killed if they leave Islam. This is false. corporal punishment for this occurs only after numerous steps have been taken. These include consulting the individual, asking him to leave the city, not preach against Islam, etc. ONLY after all this has been done, and if the individual continues to preach against Islam is this measure taken. If a person does not want to be a Muslim, but will pay the Jizyah, they are entitled to this, at their own loss.

Once again, Islam has no problem with disbelievers. It's their own problem and their own loss if they do not wish to follow our faith. So long as they obey the law - like in ANY other country - they won't be touched.

I'm sort of confused. If islam has no issue with people leaving the faith or no faith or other faith for that matter why would they ask them to leave the city or have "numerous steps" involved in anything. I mean I get the paying tax part but if they truly didn't have issue with other faiths or non-believers why exactly would there be any "steps" to be addressed. Wouldn't it just be "hey just pay this tax if you don't wanna follow and I will see you later dude" kind of response. I do see you threw in "if the individual continues to preach against islam" which would be sort of a contradiction to your statement since many religions say the others are wrong.

So my question would be if I say lived in a islamic country and I was some other religion would I have to make sure and not say mine was the correct one in order to be safe? Does the "tolerance" only go so far?

reply posted on 4-9-2011 @ 06:31 AM by catwhoknowsplusone

reply to post by Terrorist

For Christ's sake and I mean that.

That lunatic was not Christian.

Please leave Jesus out of all killing - because Jesus embraces LIFE and PEOPLE.

Go Jesus!

reply posted on 4-9-2011 @ 06:32 AM by nearlyfabled

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by nearlyfabled

Is it true that true Islam says that:
1. punishment for speaking against Islam or Muhhamad is death
2. punishment for adultery in marriage is death by stoning

Also, is homosexuality allowed in Islamic state? Can women leave the house and travel alone in Islamic state?

I am asking because there is a lot of disinformation going on..

1. In most cases, yes. But this goes for insulting. I am pretty sure criticizing is less condemnable. Different opinions can be gathered from different Islamic rulings though, depending on the severity of the insult.
2. Once again, it depends on the situation. Someone who puts effort into staying away from adultery through marriage, and other means usually are flagged 100 times. Other cases due result in stoning to death. The stoning though, is both considered a corporal punishment and a spiritual cleansing for the sin.

Homosexuality is not 'allowed', as in it is a sin. But whether or not homosexuals may exist in an Islamic country is something else. If someone has homosexual tendencies but restrains from them, for example, there is no harm that can touch him. Homosexuality in general is a largely debated upon topic in Islam. Different opinions will exist everywhere.
Women can leave the house with the permission of their husband if they are married, or with the permission of their guardian if they are not. As for traveling (which consists of leaving the city), it is not allowed for a woman to travel alone without her husband or guardian. This of course is for the protection of the woman.

reply posted on 4-9-2011 @ 06:34 AM by Terrorist

reply to post by catwhoknowsplusone

That's simply not true. He is a Christian. It was all over the news. Now whether he truly adheres to the principles Jesus taught is the issue here, but the fact that he identifies as a Christian is unambiguous. And I would agree with you that he doesn't adhere to those principles.

reply posted on 4-9-2011 @ 06:37 AM by nearlyfabled

Originally posted by drivers1492

Originally posted by nearlyfabled
reply to post by JohhnyBGood

You claim that individuals are killed if they leave Islam. This is false. corporal punishment for this occurs only after numerous steps have been taken. These include consulting the individual, asking him to leave the city, not preach against Islam, etc. ONLY after all this has been done, and if the individual continues to preach against Islam is this measure taken. If a person does not want to be a Muslim, but will pay the Jizyah, they are entitled to this, at their own loss.

Once again, Islam has no problem with disbelievers. It's their own problem and their own loss if they do not wish to follow our faith. So long as they obey the law - like in ANY other country - they won't be touched.

I'm sort of confused. If islam has no issue with people leaving the faith or no faith or other faith for that matter why would they ask them to leave the city or have "numerous steps" involved in anything. I mean I get the paying tax part but if they truly didn't have issue with other faiths or non-believers why exactly would there be any "steps" to be addressed. Wouldn't it just be "hey just pay this tax if you don't wanna follow and I will see you later dude" kind of response. I do see you threw in "if the individual continues to preach against islam" which would be sort of a contradiction to your statement since many religions say the others are wrong.

So my question would be if I say lived in a islamic country and I was some other religion would I have to make sure and not say mine was the correct one in order to be safe? Does the "tolerance" only go so far?

Good question. The steps that are taken have to do with someone who leaves the fold of Islam and chooses a different (or no) faith. They are taken to ensure that the community of the Muslims isn't undermined or disrupted by the person who chose to leave. For a non-muslim to live in a Muslim country, they must simply pay the tax and not cause trouble in the Muslim communities.
These rules are the Islamic rules. Not all countries who claim to rule by Islamic law, though, follow the laws all the way through. For example, Egypt will not incorporate a few of these laws for apostasy, etc.

reply posted on 4-9-2011 @ 06:46 AM by petrus4

Originally posted by Terrorist
That's simply not true. He is a Christian. It was all over the news. Now whether he truly adheres to the principles Jesus taught is the issue here, but the fact that he identifies as a Christian is unambiguous. And I would agree with you that he doesn't adhere to those principles.

This might be off topic slightly, but to be honest I consider Christian principles to be very difficult to adhere to, most of the time. The reason why, is because although Jesus told people to be loving, your average Christian these days, spends most of their time in a state of extreme psychological terror about a} going to Hell, and b} the end of the world.

This was one of the main reasons why I had to leave Christianity myself; because even though I'm probably still not nice to people a lot of the time anyway now, I find that (assuming I believe in God at all, of course) if I don't believe I'm unconditionally accepted and loved, when it comes to being civil to people, then I really don't have any hope.

The only time I've found myself being able to display even a small amount of compassion towards people, is when I've been able to really believe that I am still loved irrespective of what I do. I think this is because if we want to stop both feeling and behaving pathologically, the one thing we really need, more than anything else, is acceptance. Kali gives me that; and when I acknowledge it, I don't need to treat anyone badly. It's only when I stop paying attention to it, or forget it, that I am vindictive and unkind.

reply posted on 4-9-2011 @ 06:59 AM by TDawgRex

Originally posted by nearlyfabled
Let me make this clear, the only time killing is allowed (aside from corporal punishment) is in war. If a country wars against Muslims, obviously people will be killed. If Muslims conquer a land and the inhabitants refuse to convert or pay Jizyah, they will be fought until they do.
'Killing all disbelievers' is not something from Islam.

This is where I have a problem with Islam. I should not have to pay Jizyah in order to think my own thoughts.

Of course, I could always do taqiyyah and fake the funk, for my own benefit.

What? It's allowed.

reply posted on 4-9-2011 @ 07:02 AM by Maslo

reply to post by nearlyfabled

As for traveling (which consists of leaving the city), it is not allowed for a woman to travel alone without her husband or guardian. This of course is for the protection of the woman.

Would the police in Islamic state be so insufficient to protect the citizens to the point that women have to always travel with "a guardian"?
The probability of a woman getting attacked or raped while travelling in a civilised 21.st century society with a good police force is pretty small. It certainly does not warrant such huge restrictions of freedom.

edit on 4/9/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-9-2011 @ 07:07 AM by nearlyfabled

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by nearlyfabled
Let me make this clear, the only time killing is allowed (aside from corporal punishment) is in war. If a country wars against Muslims, obviously people will be killed. If Muslims conquer a land and the inhabitants refuse to convert or pay Jizyah, they will be fought until they do.
'Killing all disbelievers' is not something from Islam.

This is where I have a problem with Islam. I should not have to pay Jizyah in order to think my own thoughts.

Well that's just how it is. Islam requires itself to be recognized as dominant when it is in control of a region. It's either you follow our belief, or you pay the tax. It's not like Muslim's came up with this themselves, it's in the Qur'an - It's God's order.
But hey, if you pay the Jizyah, the Muslims are obliged to protect you in the case of war.

reply posted on 4-9-2011 @ 07:14 AM by nearlyfabled

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by nearlyfabled

As for traveling (which consists of leaving the city), it is not allowed for a woman to travel alone without her husband or guardian. This of course is for the protection of the woman.

Would the police in Islamic state be so insufficient to protect the citizens to the point that women have to always travel with "a guardian"?
The probability of a woman getting attacked or raped while travelling in a civilised 21.st century society with a good police force is pretty small. It certainly does not warrant such huge restrictions of freedom.

edit on 4/9/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

Ok, but if the woman is traveling with a guardian, the chance is reduced down to zero.
And keep in mind, travelling is not just going across town, the police aren't everywhere.