Why not war against Islam?

[A'isha]

Shouldn't be any of them doing that.

Damn straight.

 

[Leumas]

1. There are Muslims Christians who believe that Islam Christianity needs to conquer the world through offensive Jihad Holy Wars, who would willingly participate in such a war and think it's going to start soon.

2. Even those Muslims Christians who do not wish for such a war or would willingly participate in one, still follow a religion which promotes doing so.

My point is that both groups should realize that either way, non-Muslims Infidels might have a point in being critical of Islam Christianity or suspicious of Muslims Christians without that criticism being irrational or "IslamChristian phobia".

IslamChristianity teaches discrimination against women and non-Muslims Heathens.

Now? It always has been.

A women's word counts half as much as a man's.
Women inherit half what a man gets.
Women aren't allowed to travel a certain distance without a male relative.
Men are allowed to beat their women if they do not follow orders.

The list goes on and on and on and on.

You are right ISLAM is a heinous religion.....but ALL....ALL what you said above applies to Christianity and Judaism.....ALL......

So why are you not making a call to arms against Christianity and Judaism too?

 

[caniswalensis]

Damn straight.

Great! You just had to bring sexuality into this!

 

[armageddonman]

You are right ISLAM is a heinous religion.....but ALL....ALL what you said above applies to Christianity and Judaism.....ALL......

So why are you not making a call to arms against Christianity and Judaism too?

For ****'s sake and the last time.

I have NEVER advocated to wage war or any other kind of violence against Muslims and I NEVER will do so.

How about actually READING what I wrote?

I mean, is it SO HARD to conduct a simple THOUGHT EXPERIMENT?

 

[DC]

For ****'s sake and the last time.

I have NEVER advocated to wage war or any other kind of violence against Muslims and I NEVER will do so.

How about actually READING what I wrote?

I mean, is it SO HARD to conduct a simple THOUGHT EXPERIMENT?

Who's translation of the Koran into english would you recommend? which one convinced you about the message in the Koran?

 

[Complexity]

Look, Islam isn't peaceful. Islam isn't violent. Islam isn't anything, because "Islam" as a stand-alone entity does not exist. There are only Muslims, and as with any colossal group of individual human beings, they have a diverse range of views on a wide variety of topics, not least of which is just what it means to be a Muslim.

this.

The density of willful ignorance exhibited in this thread is frightening.

The christian apologists seem hell-bent on wanting us to go after islam while overlooking their own sick delusions.

Islam is every bit as silly as christianity. Granted. The world would be far better off without them (or scientology, of course).

Before and during the decades that I was a baha'i, I did a lot of reading on the history of religions, especially the history of judaism, christianity, islam, buddhism, zoroastrianism, and the bab'i and baha'i faiths. I still find the history of religion fascinating, even though now I find religious belief to be superstitious and harmful. These days, I tend to focus on the development of ancient greek religious thought. It is important to me to understand how and why beliefs evolve and what purposes they appear to serve.

I am tired of the lies and misrepresentations about islam that the christian apologists delight in repeating. I say this not in defense of islam but out of respect for honesty and integrity. I will not discuss these lies and misrepresentations, because nothing would please the apologists more than to further distract attention from the main issues. I urge anyone with real interest to read some good histories of the various religions.

One of the best books that I read on islam was Balyuzi's Muhammad and the Course of Islam (http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Course-Islam-Hasan-Balyuzi/dp/0853980608).

I also very much enjoyed Momen's The History of Shi'i Islam - The History and Doctrines of Twelver Shi'ism (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Shi%60i-Islam-History-Doctrines/dp/0300035314/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1312240095&sr=1-1).

The only edition of the koran that I have left is Arberry's The Koran Interpreted (http://www.amazon.com/Koran-Interpr...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1312239924&sr=1-1).

The edition of the bible that I have kept is The Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha - Revised Standard Version.

 

[one666]

I have only met good living Muslims here in the UK who condemn such things as jihad. They said that jihadists are not real Muslims and I am inclined to agree

 

[DC]

We should all be at war with lies and stupidity.
Being at war with Islam is not the same thing as being at war with Muslims.
I see two reasons why Liberals defend Islam. First of all, it is just a reflex to defend whatever the political Right is against. Secondly, Liberals fear that once false beliefs based on hope and wishful thinking are stricken down, then Liberalism too will be disproved and abolished. Islam thrives on showing faults on other religion while itself being incontrovertibly untrue. That is how Liberalism rolls too. If not for the fact that Liberism attacks those against it while never looking inward, there would be no Liberals.



That does not mean anything. Since there is no truth in Islam, there is no such thing as a true Muslim. It is suspicious that people defend a false belief.

If Islam was removed from the equation, there would be no guy wearing a suicide vest. There would be no 9-11 if there was no Islam.

I think there are three things you do not know about Islam

i have read from Surah 114 to 73. not once was there a call to kill or even hurt unbelievers, and by the logic of your video that older passages of the Koran are superseded by the newer ones, nobody beside Allah is allowed to deal with the unbelievers.

Sahih International

And leave Me with [the matter of] the deniers, those of ease [in life], and allow them respite a little.

Muhsin Khan

And leave Me Alone to deal with the beliers (those who deny My Verses, etc.), and those who are in possession of good things of life. And give them respite for a little while.

Pickthall

Leave Me to deal with the deniers, lords of ease and comfort (in this life); and do thou respite them awhile.

http://quran.com/73

find me a passage of the Koran newer than Surah 73 that would supersede the clear and direct command that only Allah is allowed to deal with unbelievers.

ETA: there was also a passage clearly saying something like "let those who want follow the way to the Lord or so, making it clear the Allah guy is pro free choice. supersedes all earlier passages that contradict it. forgot to make a note on that, will search it tomorow.

 

[FireGarden]

9-11 required people to be seduced by a religious ideology. It would not have happened without Islam. No human being is willing to kill innocent people and kill themselves unless their minds were rewired by a cult. Jonestown, Wacco and 9-11 have that in common.

This is inconsitent.
You aren't claiming that Islam is unique in its relationship to mass killing. But you say that 911 wouldn't have happened without Islam.

Have you actually conducted a study as to the motivations of mass murderers? How many of the following belonged to cults?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

It was nothing like Pearl Harbor. There was no nation that attacked the United States military because of political motivations.

It wasn't a nation, but of course there were political motivations. They didn't choose America at random, they chose it because of America's involvement in the middle east. Atta, apparently, even signed his will specifically in response to Israel's operation Grapes of Wrath in Lebanon.


The political motivations of terrorists are so ignored that this happened:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...ve_us_a_first_taste_of_mideast_terror/?page=1

The shooting of Robert F. Kennedy [...]

"I thought of it as an act of violence motivated by hatred of Israel and of anybody who supported Israel," said Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor who had worked on Kennedy's campaign as a volunteer adviser on gun-control policy. "It was in some ways the beginning of Islamic terrorism in America. It was the first shot. A lot of us didn't recognize it at the time."

The "beginning of Islamic terrorism in America". Yes, read that and think about it for a while. The terrorism is not politically motivated. Oh, no. Not according to Dershowitz. It is Islamic terror. Conducted by whom?

Sirhan, a Christian Arab born in Jerusalem, had moved to California as a teenager and was 24 when he shot Kennedy. "My only connection with Robert Kennedy was his sole support of Israel and his deliberate attempt to send those 50 bombers to Israel to obviously do harm to the Palestinians," he told David Frost in 1989.

Yes, that's right. Dershowitz thinks that a Christian began Islamic terrorism in America. Because political motivation is not to be considered anymore.

 

[DC]

Surah 70:42

sahih international

so leave them to converse vainly and amuse themselves until they meet their day which they are promised -

muhsin khan

so leave them to plunge in vain talk and play about, until they meet their day which they are promised.

pickthall

so let them chat and play until they meet their day which they are promised,

they are commanded to let us amuse ourself in our disbelief. until the day we are promised [Judgment day]

doesn't sound like they have to force us into Islam or kill us if we refuse.

how come?

 

[FireGarden]

i have read from Surah 114 to 73. not once was there a call to kill or even hurt unbelievers, and by the logic of your video that older passages of the Koran are superseded by the newer ones, nobody beside Allah is allowed to deal with the unbelievers.

The Quran isn't presented in chronological order. Even the verses in Surahs are not in the order they were revealed. The exact order of revelation isn't known. The Surahs are presented, mostly, in order of length. The short ones at the end are mostly fairly early.

Abrogation is a complex thing, and how to go about it is probably not entirely agreed.

I've discussed it before on this board:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96557&page=3

But it's probably best to start a new thread on the matter.

 

[FireGarden]

I think if you used less loaded terms, you would find there is less disagreement with what you actually advocate than you think. Secularizing Islam is something I think has wide support here.

Secularising society, I think.

Look, Islam isn't peaceful. Islam isn't violent. Islam isn't anything, because "Islam" as a stand-alone entity does not exist. There are only Muslims, and as with any colossal group of individual human beings, they have a diverse range of views on a wide variety of topics, not least of which is just what it means to be a Muslim.

I think this is the point we are failing to get across -- even though it has been expressed plenty of times in the thread so far.

When ??? comments on something bad and receives a counter-example... they don't take it as meaning "see the diversity" they take it as meaning "our example is the real thing, and the only way the thing can be real".

This probably stems from them believing that there is only one possible way for someone to really, truely be a Muslim. So, if we don't accept their definition of "True Muslims", then we must be pushing our own definition.

 

[DC]

The Quran isn't presented in chronological order. Even the verses in Surahs are not in the order they were revealed. The exact order of revelation isn't known. The Surahs are presented, mostly, in order of length. The short ones at the end are mostly fairly early.

Abrogation is a complex thing, and how to go about it is probably not entirely agreed.

I've discussed it before on this board:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96557&page=3

But it's probably best to start a new thread on the matter.

now, im not using the interpretations of Muslims, i exclusively use the "logic" presented in the Video. 3 things we need to know about Islam.
and even using their logic, the koran does not say what they claim.

According to the video the koran was written by one man. and it is strictly forbidden to change anything in the Koran, so i asume the Surahs are in Chronological order. otherwise the Video surely had mentioned it

 

[A'isha]

i have read from Surah 114 to 73. not once was there a call to kill or even hurt unbelievers, and by the logic of your video that older passages of the Koran are superseded by the newer ones, nobody beside Allah is allowed to deal with the unbelievers.

Keep in mind that the suras in the Qur'an are arranged by rough length of each sura (with the longer ones first), not by chronology. Sura 73 is one of the earlier Meccan suras (well, the first 20 verses or so - there's some dispute as to whether the later verses are also Meccan, or were revealed in Medina). [EDIT: D'oh, FireGarden beat me to this]

A quick scan through my collection of tafsir doesn't turn up any that think the above verse has been abrogated at all, but most commentaries seem to agree that it's aimed not at unbelievers in general, but rich and influential unbelievers (remember, at the time the verse was revealed, Muslims were an oppressed minority in Mecca, with only Muhammad's uncle's influence protecting him and his followers from the other Qurayshi elite).

ETA: there was also a passage clearly saying something like "let those who want follow the way to the Lord or so, making it clear the Allah guy is pro free choice. supersedes all earlier passages that contradict it. forgot to make a note on that, will search it tomorow.

Do you mean the "to you your religion, and to me mine" verses?

 

[FireGarden]

now, im not using the interpretations of Muslims, i exclusively use the "logic" presented in the Video. 3 things we need to know about Islam.
and even using their logic, the koran does not say what they claim.

According to the video the koran was written by one man. and it is strictly forbidden to change anything in the Koran, so i asume the Surahs are in Chronological order. otherwise the Video surely had mentioned it

Elind made a similar assumption in the thread I linked. But that didn't produce the conclusion he wanted.... I forget what happened after that.

 

[DC]

Keep in mind that the suras in the Qur'an are arranged by rough length of each sura (with the longer ones first), not by chronology. Sura 73 is one of the earlier Meccan suras (well, the first 20 verses or so - there's some dispute as to whether the later verses are also Meccan, or were revealed in Medina). [EDIT: D'oh, FireGarden beat me to this]

A quick scan through my collection of tafsir doesn't turn up any that think the above verse has been abrogated at all, but most commentaries seem to agree that it's aimed not at unbelievers in general, but rich and influential unbelievers (remember, at the time the verse was revealed, Muslims were an oppressed minority in Mecca, with only Muhammad's uncle's influence protecting him and his followers from the other Qurayshi elite).



Do you mean the "to you your religion, and to me mine" verses?

well one would expect the cideo to mention how complicated it is to find out which are the newest and which are the oldest verses. especially as the cideo recommended to read the koran myself.

and no i didnt mean the "to you your religion, and to me mine" verses but one of the many verses talking about Judgment day where it was mentioned that those who want shall follow the Koran. clearly implying free will. will have to search again, is somewhere between 74 - 109

 

[FireGarden]

Do you mean the "to you your religion, and to me mine" verses?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/yaq/yaq109.htm

 

[A'isha]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/yaq/yaq109.htm

Right, I was just trying to figure out which verse DC was referring to. I don't have the Qur'an memorized, and didn't see what verse it might be when I flipped through those suras.

 

[FireGarden]

Right, I was just trying to figure out which verse DC was referring to. I don't have the Qur'an memorized, and didn't see what verse it might be when I flipped through those suras.

I just happened to read it again in the thread I linked to earlier.

 

[DC]

..

Do you mean the "to you your religion, and to me mine" verses?

Sahih International

That is the True Day; so he who wills may take to his Lord a [way of] return.

Muhsin Khan

That is without doubt the True Day, so, whosoever wills, let him seek a place with (or a way to) His Lord (by obeying Him in this worldly life)!

Pickthall

That is the True Day. So whoso will should seek recourse unto his Lord.

German

Das ist der Tag, der wahrhaftig kommen wird. Wer will, möge sich bemühen, den rechten Weg zu Gott zu gehen.

78:39

http://quran.com/78