Muslim couple 'murdered their three daughters in honour killings' - because they wanted to cut off

Originally posted by Maslo
Lets not ignore that their deeds were motivated by their religion in this case, so mentioning it is indeed relevant.

No, their deeds were motivated by their egotism and their skewed interpretation of what honour is.

This is not related to religion.

I want researchers to do a study on that. Because I think you'd find that those who are sympathic to this action in the name of religion are more numerous than apologists hope for.

Originally posted by ManjushriPrajna
Islam has always been a religion of peace.

Please explain that comment.

I have the Quran and Islamic texts to hand, and I see nothing but vile hatred in them.

Please show me a current Islamic text or statement advocating peace.

Originally posted by Adil1
reply to post by BrianOrion

 

Alright, let me make clear and obvious the disengenuous nature of your post by quoting the same Qur'anic verses that you lifted off some anti-Islamic website.

Quran (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]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

"drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]" - This is specifically talking about resisting persecution and to "drive them our from where they drove you out".

"...but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more..." - This is saying that if the persecution stops, then you stop fighting them. This doesn't say in any way, shape, or form to go and kill non-believers. In no part of the Qur'an, if you are honest with the full context of the verses, does it command Muslims to kill kufar (non-believers)/

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

""The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this," - Again, when it describes those who wage war against Allah, is talking about those that wage war on the Muslims. This verse is describing that it is the duty to RESIST OPRESSION by all means necessary, and, as long as the oppression of Muslims continues, to resist brutally the oppression. Again, this does not command Muslims to wage war on non-believers, rather it commands Muslims to resist violently oppression and wars waged against them.

While there is indeed evidence here that you, Adil, have some intelligence, it is without question that your viewpoint is distorted. Perhaps one could suggest prejudiced?

I am not the type of person to deliver my opinion based on duplicitous innuendo nor am I ignorant of "Islam" and all that this word implies. Furthermore, my response was to a certain ManjushriPrajna's claim that Islam was a Religion of Peace... which it most certainly is not.

Your puerile attempts at refuting my claims can be described as being ambiguous at best.

I understand that you may feel it your duty to try and defend any claims that Islam is clearly not synonymous with peace. However, your first attempt (above) to explain Quran (2:191-193) is a good example of your inability to independently distinguish the consternation within said verse...

This one verse [Quran (2:191-193)] alone teaches the following:

(1) There is such a thing as justifiable massacre.
(2) Enforced colonization is acceptable.
(3) Muslims are to be considered as better than other people.

No matter how well versed you may be with regards Mahatma Gandhi, the above facts are there in plain black and white for all to read in the Quran. These three points cannot be considered attributes of a 'Peaceful' organisation or institution.

I am fully aware of the attempts of certain Islamic people and their 'taqiyya' tactics when confronted with free-thinking individuals. Regardless, only a fool would try to argue the above mentioned facts.

Perhaps, as you believe Islam to be so misconstrued and peaceful Adil, you would like to comment on the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by the conflicts that have engulfed the Sunnis and the Shiites?

And please, Adil... don't reply with ignorant statements regarding your opinion of your own interpretation of the some 109 verses in the Quran that call for violence to be perpetrated by Muslims towards non-believers and call yourself educated...

Kind regards

BrianOrion

reply to post by morkington


First and foremost, understand that I don't really care. Secondly take into account that if this one instance of blatant atrocity was held as a banner for all to rally against for the hope of change in ones religion for the better, then at least thats something.

The only people you matter to, are the ones in your circle of being..nobody else will bat an eye. Especially if they do not know you. Is this horrible? Sure... And did I say anything about sex in my post? What if Im a gynocologist? A tennis coach? A sarcastic a**hat that sees the irony in a islamic hardcore coming to america only to slaughter his family old world style? He could have stayed in craplasticstan and done that legally according to their laws.

People die....sometimes horribly....and until you reign in human nature in a whole swoop to be I dunno....more humane? This string of likely behavior will get worse.....especially due to economic factors primarily, not just religion based fanatasism.

If you believe in God thats fine, if you use religion as a crutch to dictate your lifes every move to the point of hypocracy and closed minded ignorance....then I say good day to you and I'll hand you the rope and shovel.

NOTE: I don't take myself serious most times, nor should I expect you to.....and Im not very PC either...but then most people who are can be rather insecure about where they really stand in this world. If your not having fun, what fun are ya?

reply to post by BrianOrion


Really? Hmmm not trying to validate anyone elses claim to fame, only i will point out what the church did to islam in the way of the crusades. Not to mention what the Christians did to the pagans of old after the fall of rome. In both cases it was just as bad as what Islam is doing to itself currently.

If you are a staunch believer in religion then peace or no peace you are just as complicit in the action that unfolds by default.

Do not mistake this as a disbelief in god or Jesus or whatever you may call him. Just understand how religion has warped all faith in all forms due to the direction of man as a place holder over God.

Again, religion is just as flawed as the premise of mankind in general. To have man speak for God....well.....I wouldnt take mans word for it.

reply to post by BrianOrion


Those sentences are in context of the battlefield. You cant just pick up a book and take a few sentences out of it. You have to know the whole book. Those are the rules of engagement and battlefield/wartime rules. They are telling to defend yourself from the enemy and how to fight. Once again you have to look at context. I can pick up any book and take out three sentences out of the most peaceful of books and it will look like the Nazis wrote it. Why? Because you have to look at context. This thread is debunked.

Your sentence:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay the idolators (non believers) 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 idolators [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

A quick search will show us the sentence preceeding 191: Namely sentence 190:

190. Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. 191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. 192. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

You see the sentence 190 before 191? Fight those who fight you, but do not transgress. It means to defend yourself but not become to there level. Post. You need to look at context. These are battlefield rules.

Your quote:

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Following quotes

Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."

Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."

Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."

Name of this chapter is "Surah 8. Spoils Of War, Booty." Once again this is what to do during battle when a person is attacked. It is self defense and preservation. This is like saying well the constitution is all about killing because it says in the second amendment that guns are to be allowed.

Your quote:

Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

The sentence right after it:

6. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

All taken out of context. Not to mention you took your quotes from the hate website religionofpeace.com. Sure thats not a biased source of information. You cannot pick and choose sentences without reading the previous or following sentences

reply to post by BooKrackers


Thank you for the brief, slightly innaccurate attempt at an explanation of the History of Religion and mankind's role within that story. May I request, should you ever choose to reply to a SINGLE one of my posts, you do so without jumping to conclusions regarding my feelings regarding religion as a whole? By all means you may criticise anything that I have posted, but trust me, should I feel the need for a history lesson, I will apply to a University in order to enrich my understanding.

Thank you... and goodnight

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


It is a sad tragedy to read stuff like this. But it is no worse than collation forces murder ing1.5 million Arabs for oil.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


You need to read the ENTIRE THING for context. The overall context becomes rather clear.

However, I will judge these people as they are. These nasty souls have been a blight on their own countries, and we see fit to import them and their nasty ideas. Defend them anyway you like, but they do take succor in their religion and they do find more than a tiny amount of support in their fellows in that religion.

What does that mean for the entire religion? Well that will be up to them. But I will not turn off my ability to see what they are doing or why they do it or that they have support because you find it inconvenient.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


As I am writing this reply, I am sincerely questioning the motivation behind doing so. Your claim to 'debunk' what I have chosen to put forward concerning the facts that 'Islam' is not a Religion of Peace (my original point) with your credulous opinion of the integral purpose of 'context' has, in my opinion, left you looking rather ignorant with regards the behaviour and teachings of aforementioned Religion.

The verses from the Quran, regardless of which website I have sourced, are in no means synonymous with a 'Peaceful' Religion REGARDLESS of context. Are the verses that I quoted innaccurate? Did I insert my own words and try to mis-lead by 'inventing' new chapters and verses? I think not!!!

You have clearly stated, at the beggining of your most erroneous reply, that said verses within the Quran relate to 'The Battlefield.' This now begs the question, "Where is the Battlefield?" Is it in a 7th Century Mecca? A place confined to the History books that is of no significance to the times that we currently find ourselves living in?

You may, for all I care, continue to defend such coercive practises and you may also try to support your argument with fallacious conclusion. This, in itself, will not change the incontrovertible fact that Islam, within it's own Scriptures, rationalizes justifiable massacre, enforced colonization and proclaims Muslims are to be considered as of 'more value' than other human beings.

Should I need a lesson in the behaviour and brutality of Islam, I assure you, your name will be the last on my list.

I bid you good day.

reply to post by BrianOrion

You have clearly stated, at the beggining of your most erroneous reply, that said verses within the Quran relate to 'The Battlefield.' This now begs the question, "Where is the Battlefield?" Is it in a 7th Century Mecca? A place confined to the History books that is of no significance to the times that we currently find ourselves living in?

The context is western nations bombing Iraq and afghanistan back into the stone age. The battlefield is when anyone attacks a muslim. How was it erroneous? Nothing was erroneous in the reply as I simply told you the name of the chapter from which you were quoting from. Quran is not a history book, it is a guide book to be used for all ages.

The verses from the Quran, regardless of which website I have sourced, are in no means synonymous with a 'Peaceful' Religion REGARDLESS of context. Are the verses that I quoted innaccurate? Did I insert my own words and try to mis-lead by 'inventing' new chapters and verses? I think not!!!

Yes it is important to think of context, you cannot take a sentence out of context and think it means something. When you take that quote out of context it seems that it is not peaceful, but when you look at it in context you can clearly see that this chapter is talking about warfare, battlefield rules, and self preservation once a person is attacked.Context matters 100% I never said you inserted words, I am saying you are taking things out of context. Look at the name of the chapters and their context. Context is 100% relevant.

You may, for all I care, continue to defend such coercive practises and you may also try to support your argument with fallacious conclusion.

It was not fallacious. What part was fallacious? I simply pointed out that you are incorrect in your wrong assumption because you took all your quotes out of context. I can take practically a fairy tale and turn it into a war propaganda by taking words out of context. How hard is that for you to understand? I can take any of your words out of context and create any propaganda.

This, in itself, will not change the incontrovertible fact that Islam, within it's own Scriptures, rationalizes justifiable massacre,

It is not a fact when I have just proven you wrong. Show your quote where Islam rationalizes justifiable massacre? Show the quotes in the proper context otherwise you are just spreading hate and propaganda with no proof whatsoever.

There seems to be apologetics who try to distance Muslims from these honor killings and state emphatically its not the religions that are doing this.

Well it is the religions that foster this belief in these individuals and its widespread in the middle east.

However, there is something more than the religions themselves, they're a part of the puzzle. Its the Theocracy people are enduring, which then creates whole generations of followers. Its the political agenda and forced slant that many are accepting in the religions.

And its an angenda that is being fanned and spread via black ops/cia, even mossad.

Honor killings seem a very big part of that section of humanity which follows a different elohim or annanuki slaver and is under the thumbs of fascist/theocracies.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


I will no longer respond to any of your posts...

You are obviously incapeable of rational thought and your logic requires re-evaluation.

Good luck in your defence of murderers and rapists.

BrianOrion

Originally posted by BrianOrion
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

 

I will no longer respond to any of your posts...

You are obviously incapeable of rational thought and your logic requires re-evaluation.

Good luck in your defence of murderers and rapists.

BrianOrion

Where am I incapable of rational thought? Which of my statements is not logical and requires revaluation? I have not said anything illogical

Defense of murderers and rapists? Where did I defend any of these murders? I am defending Islam from your bigotry and obvious bias by taking texts out of context. Also where did I defend the rapists? Show my quote on where I defend rapists. Your propaganda is working overtime.

Originally posted by Unity_99
There seems to be apologetics who try to distance Muslims from these honor killings and state emphatically its not the religions that are doing this.

When we have people from different religions doing this, why do you think this is related to religion?

reply to post by ArMaP


Not all of the people doing it are using religious precepts as a defense, and only in one group do you find a significant number who agree with them.

So you find this in some Hindus, but rarely do they give religious reasons for it.

Stereotyping when it supports one's "positive" view, is still stereotyping.

Originally posted by Aeons
Not all of the people doing it are using religious precepts as a defense, and only in one group do you find a significant number who agree with them.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that, could you please rephrase it? Thanks in advance.

So you find this in some Hindus, but rarely do they give religious reasons for it.

Did they give a religious reason for it in this case? I haven't read much about it, so I probably missed it.

I say this is not a religious thing because I see cases from different religions (in most Mediterranean countries, for example) and never related to religion but to the supposed "moral standards" of the ones committing the crimes.

Stereotyping when it supports one's "positive" view, is still stereotyping.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this either.