Yet another beheading. What's the world going to do about ISIS?

[Gokuy]

You mean the terrorist organization likely funded by America and perhaps Russia in cooperation to create tools for another war in the middle east?

Blatant manipulation on the part of the west, I'm old enough and smart enough to know that much.

There will be another war much like the Iraq conflict.

Yeah another war like the Iraqi Conflict.

It seems that ISIS has so many opponents

You must be registered for see images

 

[Avani]

We'll stay in the dark ages as long as we avoid the core of every global issue. For example; The 'ferguson, missouri' riots have sparked debates on racial matters but that's another failure of society. The REAL issue here is police brutality and the fascist nation that slowly shaves away at your constitutional rights. If african-americans can be treated like this, it affects all of you americans in the end. You should destroy all categorizations of people and unite to see the light at the end of the dark ages. As long as we stay divided, our owners stay our owners.

I will take it that you see the problem of religious aggression, sense of superiority over other beliefs, and self serving sense of righteousness in the name of God as a racist issue by any such follower, and attempts to convert as genocide of the other faiths by any means. U_U

Can't say I disagree. ^^ But why ignore it at one place and concentrate only on another? You will have to deal with all kind of racism. -_^

 

[YowYan]

My viewpoint is a rather 'messy' one.

Basically - most of our federal officials are guilty of treason and should be summarily executed, along with the first four tiers of democrat and republican party leadership. And their families out to one vector along with the family dog.

I'm being deliberately ridiculous there - but the point is that these people have become exceptionally entrenched in power and the quest to acquire more of it - despite having none of the discipline necessary to wield that power.

The problem with Islam is one that needed no help from us. ISIS, or a group like them, would have come to power at some point in time. Our involvement may have decided which group, specifically, succeeded insofar as they have - and accelerated the time schedule - but it was only a matter of time before these groups started to gain more traction.

The problem with the U.S. has just been one of progressive insanity.

For whatever reason, many economists back in the 50s and even 60s believed in the practicality and efficiency of centralized planning. Probably because the USSR seemed to be such a thriving and productive atmosphere. Thus, it was believed necessary to fight the Russians everywhere we could to strain their resources.

The CIA was given hideous amounts of foreign authority and began selecting various groups and nations to arm if they agreed to fight the Russians.

When Russia invaded Afghanistan during their attempts to get Chechnya to get with the program - we funded anyone willing to pull a trigger in the direction of the Russians. At least, at the time, the CIA did a fairly decent job of choosing people who were willing to fight.

Unlike now...

Anyway - this all continued up until the USSR collapsed.

Then the CIA was gutted. Issues like Iran-Contra and Watergate (a story broke by the CIA - which maintained a lot of intel on DC's antics...) left a very sour taste in the mouth of politicians - who ruthlessly destroyed funding for the CIA.

While I have to say I support the ending of programs meant to fund opposition elements - the problem is that many of these programs were tied in with human intelligence resources. These were informants we had embedded into groups like AQ - we had active reports coming out of Iran, Iraq, and many other places. These should have been kept in-tact. They take decades to build and are exceptionally fragile.

Which is why we essentially lost any and all influence over many of these groups - or even just knowledge of what they were doing.

Then you run into the problem of meddling.

I do not believe, for one moment, that we would be 'better off' if we just completely ignored the Middle East. I do not believe they needed our meddling in their affairs to have a reason to wage their ideas of war against us.

That said - I can't say I am of the opinion that we should be playing around in the sand with them, either.

I am unlike many Libertarians on this issue because I do not see the 'nation of Islam' as a classical country that can be dealt with according to economics. It will not make decisions based upon the same rational logic we use - it will make them based upon Islamic rationale which is blatantly hostile and expansionist for the sake of bringing the world under one rightful religion.

Thus, to believe it will not become a problem is just naive.

On the other hand - trying to 'nation build' in the way we were and this 'new' attempt to 'fund the enemies of our enemies' is a very ineffectual solution. Especially when the enemies of our enemies just signed a peace treaty and decreed they would use our arms to overthrow the dictator who does not want our enemies to have power over him.

If this were the old CIA - they would have armed Assad - since he can at least be dealt with as a 'classic country' and will be somewhat predictable in how he will behave.

I think our best course of action is to fix our own home nations, first.

The U.S. needs to go back onto a gold standard. We need to hold a convention of states to emphasize the restrictions of authority placed upon our federal government. We need to bring our military home and re-establish our borders. We need to rid ourselves of social entitlements (immigration, then, becomes much less of an issue), and we need to rid ourselves of unconstitutional taxes (essentially all of them spare sales taxes). The governments would see a reduction in regulation authority and our economy would do a 180 within a decade.

Then we can start looking at how to handle the issue of Islam.

Unfortunately - this is not likely to happen. The U.S. economy will implode and will take a lot of the other western nations along with it. Our foolishness will have backed a bunch of anti-state rebels in the middle east - so it will be a wide open market for groups like ISIS to expand the caliphate (I am almost beginning to suspect Obama knows this and this is his aim).

This will prompt a new 'dark age' - through which the Islamic State will reclaim most of its old Ottoman territory.

They will probably have a bit more trouble with East Europe and the Balkans - since they still have the stomach for genocide - and Russia won't be hit as hard by our collapse as many of the other nations will - but China and India will be dealing with an Islamic incursion when their economy is in the midst of reeling from the effective loss of America and much of the EuroZone.

But, assuming everyone recovers - those who are left will face a very troubling problem.

Do the regions that were conquered and have been converted need to be re-conquered?

If not - will this happen again?

It could be that so-called 'radicalized' Islam will not spread as effectively outside of areas of the Middle East - since those regions tend to be more rich in resources and the tactics of Islam are more geared toward desert nomads....

But Bosnia and Chechnya stand out as relatively temperate regions while having entrenched Muslim populations.

On the other hand - the Kurds have held out against Muslim invasions for centuries - and their portion of Iraq is absolutely beautiful.

The Serbs, also, survived for many generations under the Ottoman empire while resisting attempts at subversion - as did the Croats and Greeks.

So it could be that certain cultures are just harder for Islam to crack than others. The Serbs are noted as being fairly collectivist - so that might be a factor that keeps them from being as harshly affected by the whole women marrying Muslim conversion strategies.

Either way - I think it's a problem that will have to be addressed - though not in the way we are trying to address it, now.

I'm also not so certain that the problem can be addressed in a way that is anything other than Islam's tactics applied against it. Counter-invade, counter-conquer, and counter-annihilate. Destroy the men and let the women be free or marry to men of western culture of their own volition. Men tend to carry the ideas and customs of society while women tend to carry the history.

I don't particularly -like- that solution - but I'm not seeing many practical alternatives in the long run.

Again, interesting read. I agree with your conclusion. Attending domestic issues first before trying to better/police other nations. As Ron Paul said; abolish the fed and the income tax. Also go back to the gold standard. First free your own people, then free people from oppressive societies in the middle-east. Like women in saudi-arabia. But rather than doing just that..your country fuels their hate and motivate them to spread their indoctrine through force. And arm them..I wonder how things would be if usa never started meddling in the middle east. Or any other super power for that matter. Tripoli would be the Paris of the arab nations.

I will take it that you see the problem of religious aggression, sense of superiority over other beliefs, and self serving sense of righteousness in the name of God as a racist issue by any such follower, and attempts to convert as genocide of the other faiths by any means. U_U

Can't say I disagree. ^^ But why ignore it at one place and concentrate only on another? You will have to deal with all kind of racism. -_^

Then set the right example instead of indirectly arming them and then declare another war on them.
And about the ferguson riot..(or racism in general); people should try to avoid being biased and hatefull to one category of people by making sure they study socio-econmic issues involving that category of people. (Falling asleep, scuse me if i'm not making sense)

 

[Scooby Doo]

Spoiler

I'm not sure what your grasp of spoken English is - but the video I posted reinforced this point quite well.

According to the Hadith - the last revelation Mohammed had was Chapter 9.

You must be registered for see links

9:28 O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.

9:29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

9:30 The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?

9:31 They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.

9:32 They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it.

9:33 It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although they who associate others with Allah dislike it.

I ... suppose ... you could translate that to mean "No compulsion of religion" - since the concept of paying a Jizya and living as a second class citizen is allowed...

But... that isn't what most westerners interpret to mean "no compulsion." I'm not sure if that is what Mohammed meant when he said it... but it doesn't really matter since God said that earlier revelations are replaced with better revelations. So if the earlier revelation meant "no compulsion" - then the better revelation meant "They don't -have- to become Muslims, they just have to yield everything to Muslims and pay a special tax. Unless you need money - then fight them for their money."

Which is precisely what Mustafa did.



I classify myself as spiritual on the general spectrum of Christianity - but I'm of the opinion that the church political infrastructure has become a part of the antichrist that has been warned of. I also disagree with many of the literal interpretations of the bible. I look at it all as man's attempt to document both history and wondrous events in history (perhaps genuine miracles - perhaps accounts of something so advanced we can only begin to glimpse a scientific explanation).

I think one of the biggest mistakes that has been made is the belief that 'prophets' and other divinely inspired individuals are a sort of 'thing of the past.'



I have.

Bluntly - the obvious explanation for their dilemma is that the Koran is a redaction.

The fact that 'partial' Korans with differences amongst them from the first few hundred years of Islam exist would indicate that the verses they use to say that the Koran doesn't change and is complete/perfect is, clearly, not the case.

But even if we assume that the Koran we have today is complete as it was intended - then we still run into the problem of the Koran proclaiming itself to be clear and having every detail expounded - yet here it requires interpretation to be understood properly.

Their attempts to navigate around the issue of "verse" simply fall flat - since the revelations of the Koran are miracles and signs within themselves - which people are supposed to take meaning from.

Therefor the later miraculous sign from which to derive meaning as written in the Koran is 'better' than the earlier one.

Since the Koran was written to establish the state of Islam and solidify control over all aspects of culture - it makes perfect sense that the "you make this up" was in there. These lines were added after/during the arab civil war that established Islam as the state religion - or were redacted into later Koran prints by scholars who were using writings from that time.

Even within the context of a 'real religion' - the argument that it was intended to apply to non-believers falls flat, as well.

If I don't believe the Koran to be divine - then why in the hell would I pay any attention to its self-insistence that it is (or its ability to predict that I would be skeptical of it?) The statement is clearly meant to quell dissension within Islam - it is mean to apply to the believer and beseech that he seek further understanding (from a book that is clear and expounded upon in detail....).



The Hadith are akin to classical scripture as westerners are concerned - they tell stories and are accounts of The Prophet and his exploits.

There are your core Hadith that comprise something akin to the Bible in their weight/influence.

The Koran really has no western scriptural equivalent. People in the west simply don't ascribe any amount of importance to scripture the same as Arabs will the Koran (and many non-arabs, in this day and age). Perhaps the Ten Commandments in terms of scriptural weight - but nothing really reaches the same cultural importance (except, perhaps, sports leaderboards).

There are some things that make a difference to me - and some things that don't.

My point is a rather sharp one.

Islam is incompatible with western ideology. The concept of 'freedom of religion' does not exist within Islam. It is impossible, even amongst the peaceful muslims, for Islam to be a peaceful religion - as I said, a five year old could perfectly interpret the scripture the same way centuries of Arab conquest and subjugation did.

As such - it has no place within western cultures and should be removed. To the last individual.

Because how many of these peaceful muslims are going to war against their own kind when my daughter is taken from me - or my son's wife is taken to bear children for the muslim militant who killed my son?

Of course not.

They will continue to tout that Islam is a religion of peace and that it is being wrongfully interpreted even as they are being forced into Sharia law. They will continue to pass out the Koran and turn a blind eye to those in their mosques raising funds to send to groups like ISIS. They will wonder why their son ran off to join a foreign war before coming back here to begin pillaging the neighborhood.

I am not blind to history.

Those who wish to preserve their freedom will ready themselves for war against Islam. The next Dark Age is upon us, and the same fires that swept through the post-roman world will sweep through the post-American world.

The concept of multiculturalism is nice - it's wonderful - but it has its practical limitations. If the culture is one of conquest and subjugation - then being 'multi' with it doesn't really work. It's like putting the rabbits in with the garden - or the fox in the hen house.

Well, that's what a christian apologist thinks about the topic (I guess if I accuse him with bias- just like the ex-terrorist, the jewish woman, and the other christian apologist in another video you posted- well that'd be avoiding the question.)

So here are other sources on the literary and historical context of Surat 9 :

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

It's up to you to decide which interpretation you accept- my whole point was, that there is always another side of the coin.

The 9th Surat, that was supposed to be the last long Surat revealed, also says in the

6th and 7th verse: "And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know." "...as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them."

As far as I'm concerned, if I was a 5 yrs old, I'd interpret it at first reading that this Surat is about when polytheists break a treaty.

1-2th verses: "[This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists. So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers."

12th verse: "And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease."

13th: "Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers."

Anyway it's further explained in the links. David Wood's video focused only on a few verses, and 'forgot' about the real context.Instead of watching long videos, it'd be easier to just read the whole chapter Lol


I don't see anyway why should one verse replace the older ones? "We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it." How is violence better than peace? I think it's obviously not. You posted, based on your video, that Bin Laden planned 9/11 as a reminder of 9.11.1683 Vienna. Well, 9/11 is also the day when Benjamin Franklin wrote, "There never was a good war or bad peace". (Or the same day when the British mandate in Palestine began- just saying). In short, even if the abrogation exists, I don't see how violence is better than peace, so it should replace the peaceful verses. Especially that in the links I posted, the context of the 9th Surat is explained.
The whole concept of abrogation is debatable- as explained in the other link I posted.

As for Quran 5: 51:

You must be registered for see links

But 5: 82 says: "You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers [to be] the Jews and those who associate others with Allah ; and you will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say, "We are Christians." That is because among them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant."

Honestly, this debate can go on forever- as I'm sure I can always find a source that interprets the verses quoted in your videos, in a different way- that you may accept or not.

Eh? Do you mean that not everyone agrees on the Hadith to the same degree, or consider them weaker than other sources or do you mean that most people do not put much faith in it in the first place because of miracles?

For- Why would it even matter if anyone else believes in the miracle or not if they do not use it for a ruling for themselves? They are just pointing at a source and it's one of sources for Islamic ruling as I know- Quran, Hadith( statements from Prophet's life) , Qiyas ( analogy based on examples of his life) and Ijma ( consensus)..

I may be wrong of course seeing it's been almost a decade since I read about it.( and only in context of Muslim personal law here.)

What did I miss?

Well, yeah, Hadith as in 'tradition' is supposed to be a degree lower than the Quran. There are supposed contradicitons in the hadith, but not in the Quran.

Anyway, my point is, from the viewpoint of an outsider (myself), that we can cherrypick hadith-s that show the violent side of Islam, but we can also select examples of when the Prophet was forgiving and all. And to use certain hadith to degrade the figure of Mohammed, saying that those hadith are true, then one should also accept the miracles and everything else written there. Now if Aim says he doesn't believe a word about Islam's divine inspiration ( nor do I, anyway), then why cherrypick hadith that fit his/one's prejudice, and forget about other hadith?

 

[Aim64C]

Again, interesting read. I agree with your conclusion. Attending domestic issues first before trying to better/police other nations. As Ron Paul said; abolish the fed and the income tax. Also go back to the gold standard. First free your own people, then free people from oppressive societies in the middle-east. Like women in saudi-arabia. But rather than doing just that..your country fuels their hate and motivate them to spread their indoctrine through force. And arm them..I wonder how things would be if usa never started meddling in the middle east. Or any other super power for that matter. Tripoli would be the Paris of the arab nations.

Perhaps.

It's hard to say. Part of the reality of the Middle East is an economic one. All of the world's major powers rely heavily upon crude oil for their economies. Just as Russia has been instigating issues in Crimea over the natural gas, so, too, has the Middle East been caught up in conflicts centered around who is who of oil.

Dating back even further - we go to the dawn of the U.S. as a nation.

The Marine Hymn:

"
From the Halls of Montezuma
To the shores of Tripoli;
We fight our country's battles
In the air, on land, and sea;
First to fight for right and freedom
And to keep our honor clean;
We are proud to claim the title
Of United States Marine.

Our flag's unfurled to every breeze
From dawn to setting sun;
We have fought in every clime and place
Where we could take a gun;
In the snow of far-off Northern lands
And in sunny tropic scenes,
You will find us always on the job
The United States Marines.

Here's health to you and to our Corps
Which we are proud to serve;
In many a strife we've fought for life
And never lost our nerve.
If the Army and the Navy
Ever look on Heaven's scenes,
They will find the streets are guarded
By United States Marines. "

To the shores of Tripoli.

This is where the old term: "Leather Neck" for the Marines comes from.

You must be registered for see links

" After the United States won its independence in the treaty of 1783, it had to protect its own commerce against dangers such as the Barbary pirates. As early as 1784 Congress followed the tradition of the European shipping powers and appropriated $80,000 as tribute to the Barbary states, directing its ministers in Europe, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, to begin negotiations with them. Trouble began the next year, in July 1785, when Algerians captured two American ships and the dey of Algiers held their crews of twenty-one people for a ransom of nearly $60,000.

Thomas Jefferson, United States minister to France, opposed the payment of tribute, as he later testified in words that have a particular resonance today. In his autobiography Jefferson wrote that in 1785 and 1786 he unsuccessfully "endeavored to form an association of the powers subject to habitual depredation from them. I accordingly prepared, and proposed to their ministers at Paris, for consultation with their governments, articles of a special confederation." Jefferson argued that "The object of the convention shall be to compel the piratical States to perpetual peace." Jefferson prepared a detailed plan for the interested states. "Portugal, Naples, the two Sicilies, Venice, Malta, Denmark and Sweden were favorably disposed to such an association," Jefferson remembered, but there were "apprehensions" that England and France would follow their own paths, "and so it fell through." "

You must be registered for see links

"The Second Barbary War (1815), also known as the Algerine or Algerian War, was the second of two wars fought between the United States and the Ottoman Empire's North African regencies of Tripoli, Tunis, and Algeria known collectively as the Barbary states. The war between the Barbary States and the U.S. ended in 1815; the international dispute would effectively be ended the following year by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. The war brought an end to the American practice of paying tribute to the pirate states and helped mark the beginning of the end of piracy in that region, which had been rampant in the days of Ottoman domination (16th–18th centuries). Within decades, European powers built ever more sophisticated and expensive ships which the Barbary pirates could not match in numbers or technology.[11] "

It was the policy of the Barbary States to capture ships and demand ransom payments.

Jefferson got sick of it and sent in the Marines. There is a pretty good novelization of it in:

You must be registered for see links

I don't always agree with Beck in a political sense (I think he is too hooked into the Mormon Church) - but he did a great job with that book and he highlights a few spots that conservatives often try to gloss over all too zealously with nationalism.

I have also been researching the history of the Balkans and I have begun to take a great interest in the uprisings against the Ottoman empire. To say there were some interesting characters coming from what would become Bosnia/Herzegovina, Serbia, and the other regions forming the former Yugoslav republic is an understatement. The history literally reads like A Game of Thrones - from the 'little guys' who just want regional power and create huge problems for some empire to the distant super-powers looking to steer events in their direction.

I actually have a friend I'd like to work with from the region to write a novelized form of their history - to create accurate characters that people can connect with - to do some of the larger-than-life characters justice... then translate it into the Serbian languages, as well (or just Serbian if they can all live with that... since there's little difference between Montenegrin and Bosnian spare for pride... actually - she insists she speaks Serbian but Google Translate always insists it's a Bosnian dialect).

Anyway - the history of the Balkans under the Ottoman Empire is a curious one. The Ottomans were content to let the Slavic Orthodox Christians exist so long as they paid taxes and all that jazz. There were some Muslims in there who kind of served as the regional elites - but were more of a political necessity for the Ottomans than anything (or so my current understanding leads me to believe - part of why I plan to travel there). The people there largely just lived as they always did. Sure - they were second class citizens - but the farmer's life wasn't a bad one and the whole region was largely being passed by the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution.

Until the Ottoman Empire went bankrupt.

They were committing financial suicide before the U.S. thought it was a good idea (though the Romans beat them to the punch).

Under Ottoman laws - one had to have his crops appraised for taxable value by the Tax Assessor before crops could be sold. Anyone familiar with farming already sees where there is eventually going to be a problem. Normally - when the assessor could get around to all of the farms - it wasn't a big deal. Except, due to financial issues and other political dithering by the Ottomans, the tax assessor was unable to make it to one particular region (the book is in my car - sorry) in order to assess taxable value of crops. The farmers, knowing their crops would rot and people would starve, went ahead and sold their crops even without the assessor.

By the time the assessor got around, it was winter. Since the law had been broken - there was no 'best guess' reporting to be done.

The army was dispatched and the region looted.

This sparked a series of uprisings that drew the attention of France and other European nations who saw the Christians being persecuted by Muslims (who had been trying to invade what would become Austria for the better part of a century). This led to the various Christian societies effectively arming the Orthodox Christian rebels.

Things got so out of hand that the Ottomans eventually dispatched the army:

You must be registered for see links

" The national council proclaimed open revolt against the Ottoman Empire in Takovo on April 24, 1815. Obrenović was chosen as the leader and famously spoke, "Here I am, here you are. War to the Turks!" When the Ottomans discovered the new revolt they sentenced all of its leaders to death. The Serbs fought in battles at Ljubić, Čačak, Palež, Požarevac and Dublje and drove the Ottomans out of the Pashaluk of Belgrade.

In mid-1815, the first negotiations began between Obrenović and Maraşlı Ali Paşa (English, Marashli Ali Pasha; Serbian, Marašli Ali Paša), the Ottoman governor. Obrenović managed to get a form of partial autonomy for Serbs, and, in 1816, the Turkish Porte signed several documents for the normalization of relations between Serbs and Turks. The result was acknowledgment of a Serbian Principality by the Ottoman Empire. Although the principality paid a yearly tax to the Porte and had a garrison of Turkish troops in Belgrade until 1867, it was, in most other matters, an independent state.

In 1817, Obrenović succeeded in forcing Maraşlı Ali Paşa to negotiate an unwritten agreement, and, with this, the Second Serbian uprising was finished. The same year, Karađorđe, the leader of the First Uprising, returned to Serbia and was assassinated by Obrenović's orders. Obrenović received the title of Prince of Serbia. Under the grandson of his brother, Milan, Serbia gained formal independence in 1878 under the Treaty of Berlin. "

Just from that little snippet - you can see how absolutely intricate the political sphere was, over there and how passionate some of the key figures were.

Though I have yet to finish it - I highly recommend this book:

You must be registered for see links

There are newer prints of it that include more modern events - such as the votes of secession from Yugoslavia/Serbia establishing countries like Montenegro.

So... to get back to the original point - I am not so sure, looking at the history of the Middle East and those who have been forced to deal with what comes out of it, that it would have been possible to -not- meddle in some way, shape, or form. It seems to find ways of motivating other nations to mess with it.

And about the ferguson riot..(or racism in general); people should try to avoid being biased and hatefull to one category of people by making sure they study socio-econmic issues involving that category of people. (Falling asleep, scuse me if i'm not making sense)

I think I understand what you are getting at...

At the same time, Thomas Sowell has done numerous studies on the socio-economic trends of ethnic groups and believes the problem with the demographic of Ferguson has more to do with culture than some kind of economic status imposed on them:

[video=youtube;Eu_bKJ11O0M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu_bKJ11O0M[/video]

I think this broaches on a similar problem with the religion of Islam.

So long as you have a culture that insists that it is entitled, but also that it is a victim because it is not being entitled... you have a problem - particularly when this culture then insists that the method of recourse for failing to receive entitlements is to riot.

Basically - if people disagree with the premise that you deserve to be paid to exist - destroy their businesses and beat up their people.

This is essentially the behavior of the Barbary States.

The only way this group will improve is if they cease to make excuses for themselves and begin to conduct themselves as if they are part of our society rather than insisting they are part of some other kind of society with special properties and privileges.

So here are other sources on the literary and historical context of Surat 9 :

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

It's up to you to decide which interpretation you accept- my whole point was, that there is always another side of the coin.

The 9th Surat, that was supposed to be the last long Surat revealed, also says in the

6th and 7th verse: "And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know." "...as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them."

As far as I'm concerned, if I was a 5 yrs old, I'd interpret it at first reading that this Surat is about when polytheists break a treaty.

1-2th verses: "[This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists. So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers."

12th verse: "And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease."

13th: "Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers."

Anyway it's further explained in the links. David Wood's video focused only on a few verses, and 'forgot' about the real context.Instead of watching long videos, it'd be easier to just read the whole chapter Lol

I've read the whole chapter.

Do you remember what it says to do after the treaty has run out?

That's right. The rocks will cry out: "Here is a Jew, Kill him."

Let us forget about why there would need to be a treaty in the first place.

I don't see anyway why should one verse replace the older ones? "We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it." How is violence better than peace? I think it's obviously not. You posted, based on your video, that Bin Laden planned 9/11 as a reminder of 9.11.1683 Vienna. Well, 9/11 is also the day when Benjamin Franklin wrote, "There never was a good war or bad peace". (Or the same day when the British mandate in Palestine began- just saying). In short, even if the abrogation exists, I don't see how violence is better than peace, so it should replace the peaceful verses. Especially that in the links I posted, the context of the 9th Surat is explained.
The whole concept of abrogation is debatable- as explained in the other link I posted.

This is because you think like a westerner.

God has commanded his followers to bring the world under God's prescribed way of life. All of the world is living in a state of heresy - is disgracing God with their very existence.

You have to understand that God (or in this case, Allah) does not command peace. He commands submission - the very name of a Muslim is "one who submits." Peace is what occurs when all have submitted to Allah's commands.

How do you go about spreading submission?

Not peacefully.

It's really very simple. You go into a region with a superior army and you tell them that they are going to do exactly what you tell them to. They either comply - or they resist. Kill all who resist. Then you tell them that they are going to practice Allah's commands - his ways - his laws for living. Those who refuse - you kill them, spare for the women. Distribute the women amongst your warriors and allow them to impregnate them repeatedly. Raise the children according to Allah's commandments.

That is how you completely force a culture into submission.

The "Peaceful" way was used more so in regions where military dominance to such a degree was not entirely practical (like the Balkans - even then, every time the Turks came through to attack the Austrians, they pretty much helped themselves to the farm girls). By this method, you simply forbid marriage outside of Islam for women and only allow women to marry into Islam if they convert. Then you out-breed your neighbors (by living off of their taxes paid to the ruling class - you) and gain numerical superiority. Although it didn't work so well in areas with naturally self-isolating cultures.

In other areas that willingly married outside of their own religion - they rarely lasted more than 200 years past their first encounter with Islam.

Violence is quite good for an empire.

From a purely biological standpoint, it is the nature of men to command territory and to be hostile toward other men - even to kill them. Since, genetically, men and women are equally as likely to result from a pregnancy - it benefits the men to kill other men as the women will have fewer partners to choose from (thus one can force a harem).

Which is precisely why many of the older 'empires' had forced conscription into military service for the men. The cultural elites would tend harems and the young men would be used as pawns.

To believe that every religion should be interpreted in a peaceful manner is just looking at things through rose-tinted glasses, as history has rarely been peaceful.

Even within the Bible, you have many stories from the Old Testament where the Israelites are wandering through the desert and end up waging war against one country/city-state, or another. In one particular instance, ... I'm trying to remember his name... preceded King David... - anyway - he was told through the Prophet (I believe Isiah - but names are blurring together for me, right now) upon attacking a city to take no prisoners and to kill all of the livestock. He took prisoners and was looting the livestock when the prophet showed up and flipped shit. I believe the reality behind this was that God did not want a bunch of thugs and looters - and it makes sense, given the tendency of people to deviate toward thug-like behavior and looting. Not to mention - I imagine God would not condone the taking of slaves/servants (the Israelites -did- just come from Egypt not a century before).

Either way - it's not exactly the most 'peaceful' of messages and is rooted in a rather brutal practicality.

Better to just let the conquered be gone than to corrupt your army with looting and slavery.

As for Quran 5: 51:

You must be registered for see links

But 5: 82 says: "You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers [to be] the Jews and those who associate others with Allah ; and you will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say, "We are Christians." That is because among them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant."

Honestly, this debate can go on forever- as I'm sure I can always find a source that interprets the verses quoted in your videos, in a different way- that you may accept or not.

The problem is that the Koran is not really to be interpreted. It is God's explicit command sent forth from Heaven. It is entirely explained within itself.

They can interpret it however they want - but the reality is that they will be killed under the Islamic State for interpreting it that way.... if they continue to interpret it that way once the Islamic State comes forward.

What you must really ask yourself is why, pray tell, does all of the violence the Koran expressly commands Muslims to commit need to be rationalized away?

Well, yeah, Hadith as in 'tradition' is supposed to be a degree lower than the Quran. There are supposed contradicitons in the hadith, but not in the Quran.

Anyway, my point is, from the viewpoint of an outsider (myself), that we can cherrypick hadith-s that show the violent side of Islam, but we can also select examples of when the Prophet was forgiving and all. And to use certain hadith to degrade the figure of Mohammed, saying that those hadith are true, then one should also accept the miracles and everything else written there. Now if Aim says he doesn't believe a word about Islam's divine inspiration ( nor do I, anyway), then why cherrypick hadith that fit his/one's prejudice, and forget about other hadith?

You must be registered for see images

I am sure all of those nations suddenly realized the error of their ways and how peaceful Islam was - as it was first practiced by those who could very well have personally known the man claimed to be Mohammed.

In fact, I am sure that Islam was so peaceful, forgiving, and innocent that the surrounding nations invaded the Arabs out of jealousy before miraculously being ruled by the Arabs.

Just how thick are those rose-tinted glasses, man?

 

[Scooby Doo]

I've read the whole chapter.

Do you remember what it says to do after the treaty has run out?

That's right. The rocks will cry out: "Here is a Jew, Kill him."

Let us forget about why there would need to be a treaty in the first place.

That's cool coz that is not in the Quran but the hadith.

Spoiler

This is because you think like a westerner.


God has commanded his followers to bring the world under God's prescribed way of life. All of the world is living in a state of heresy - is disgracing God with their very existence.

You have to understand that God (or in this case, Allah) does not command peace. He commands submission - the very name of a Muslim is "one who submits." Peace is what occurs when all have submitted to Allah's commands.

How do you go about spreading submission?

Not peacefully.

It's really very simple. You go into a region with a superior army and you tell them that they are going to do exactly what you tell them to. They either comply - or they resist. Kill all who resist. Then you tell them that they are going to practice Allah's commands - his ways - his laws for living. Those who refuse - you kill them, spare for the women. Distribute the women amongst your warriors and allow them to impregnate them repeatedly. Raise the children according to Allah's commandments.

That is how you completely force a culture into submission.

The "Peaceful" way was used more so in regions where military dominance to such a degree was not entirely practical (like the Balkans - even then, every time the Turks came through to attack the Austrians, they pretty much helped themselves to the farm girls). By this method, you simply forbid marriage outside of Islam for women and only allow women to marry into Islam if they convert. Then you out-breed your neighbors (by living off of their taxes paid to the ruling class - you) and gain numerical superiority. Although it didn't work so well in areas with naturally self-isolating cultures.

In other areas that willingly married outside of their own religion - they rarely lasted more than 200 years past their first encounter with Islam.

Violence is quite good for an empire.

From a purely biological standpoint, it is the nature of men to command territory and to be hostile toward other men - even to kill them. Since, genetically, men and women are equally as likely to result from a pregnancy - it benefits the men to kill other men as the women will have fewer partners to choose from (thus one can force a harem).

Which is precisely why many of the older 'empires' had forced conscription into military service for the men. The cultural elites would tend harems and the young men would be used as pawns.

To believe that every religion should be interpreted in a peaceful manner is just looking at things through rose-tinted glasses, as history has rarely been peaceful.

Even within the Bible, you have many stories from the Old Testament where the Israelites are wandering through the desert and end up waging war against one country/city-state, or another. In one particular instance, ... I'm trying to remember his name... preceded King David... - anyway - he was told through the Prophet (I believe Isiah - but names are blurring together for me, right now) upon attacking a city to take no prisoners and to kill all of the livestock. He took prisoners and was looting the livestock when the prophet showed up and flipped shit. I believe the reality behind this was that God did not want a bunch of thugs and looters - and it makes sense, given the tendency of people to deviate toward thug-like behavior and looting. Not to mention - I imagine God would not condone the taking of slaves/servants (the Israelites -did- just come from Egypt not a century before).

Either way - it's not exactly the most 'peaceful' of messages and is rooted in a rather brutal practicality.

Better to just let the conquered be gone than to corrupt your army with looting and slavery.



The problem is that the Koran is not really to be interpreted. It is God's explicit command sent forth from Heaven. It is entirely explained within itself.

They can interpret it however they want - but the reality is that they will be killed under the Islamic State for interpreting it that way.... if they continue to interpret it that way once the Islamic State comes forward.

What you must really ask yourself is why, pray tell, does all of the violence the Koran expressly commands Muslims to commit need to be rationalized away?

You must be registered for see images

I am sure all of those nations suddenly realized the error of their ways and how peaceful Islam was - as it was first practiced by those who could very well have personally known the man claimed to be Mohammed.

In fact, I am sure that Islam was so peaceful, forgiving, and innocent that the surrounding nations invaded the Arabs out of jealousy before miraculously being ruled by the Arabs.

Just how thick are those rose-tinted glasses, man?

Interpretations are important, especially when the arab words may have different meanings, so the interpretation is up to the translation. (Same with Bible).

Just like in the case of abrogation. I showed you that it's refutable based on grammar. If you don't like it, not my problem.

Even if abrogation exists, I showed you that the last Surat (9th) has set the example of defensive war.

Anyway I never said Islam is the religion of peace. I don't buy that. I know history, I know what it was used for. But do I have to remind what christianity was used for? We can argue for eternity about who did more sh*it (and it may very well turn out that it was the christians). So, to me Islam is the religion of peace as much as Christianity is the religion of love.

I could also ask, how thick is your glasses of bias and hatred?

 

[Luther]

The US Governement has to take action now, its getting out of hand.

 

[Aim64C]

That's cool coz that is not in the Quran but the hadith.

Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive 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."

Same difference.

Interpretations are important, especially when the arab words may have different meanings, so the interpretation is up to the translation. (Same with Bible).

No - it is not.

The Koran is -not- open to interpretation.

This is where Westerners get confused - comparing the Koran to the Bible. It's no such thing. There is no scriptural equivalent in any religion equal to the Koran in Islam.

The Koran could be best compared to the Ten Commandments and the "Holy Grail" that is alleged to contain them - except you were looking at direct copies of the Ten Commandments with the same reverence as the Holy Grail.

This is why Muslims flip shit when Korans are burned or desecrated. It's worse than pissing on the base of a Christian Cross.

Let's see how the Koran describes itself, shall we?

4:174 O mankind, there has come to you a conclusive proof from your Lord, and We have sent down to you a clear light.

10:37 And it was not [possible] for this Qur'an to be produced by other than Allah , but [it is] a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation of the [former] Scripture, about which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds.

26:2 These are the verses of the clear Book.

And the final synch?

16:64 And We have not revealed to you the Book, [O Muhammad], except for you to make clear to them that wherein they have differed and as guidance and mercy for a people who believe.

It is a book that contains all detail necessary to eliminate differences amongst the believers.

It even warns that it is not supposed to be interpreted:

39:41 Indeed, We sent down to you the Book for the people in truth. So whoever is guided - it is for [the benefit of] his soul; and whoever goes astray only goes astray to its detriment. And you are not a manager over them.

This firmly establishes that the Koran is superior to any worldly interpretation.

Just like in the case of abrogation. I showed you that it's refutable based on grammar. If you don't like it, not my problem.

Except it is not refutable.

The Koran specifically says it is not.

Which makes it your problem.

It's like claiming that a serial killer is 'misunderstood' and 'his actions can be interpreted in a different way.'

That's fine - but I'm telling you that if you let the serial killer out and try to make friends with and 'understand' him - you're going to end up dead and quite possibly other people, as well. I suppose you can interpret reality to mean whatever you want - but that gets into a philosophical discussion on the meaning of life.

Even if abrogation exists, I showed you that the last Surat (9th) has set the example of defensive war.

I'm going to put all of Surat 9 in spoiler tags, then excerpt where it is you have gotten confused as to the chapter's meaning:

Spoiler

[This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.

So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.

And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away - then know that you will not cause failure to Allah . And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment.

Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.

How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient.

They have exchanged the signs of Allah for a small price and averted [people] from His way. Indeed, it was evil that they were doing.

They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors.

But if they repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, then they are your brothers in religion; and We detail the verses for a people who know.

And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease.

Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers.

Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people

And remove the fury in the believers' hearts. And Allah turns in forgiveness to whom He wills; and Allah is Knowing and Wise.

Do you think that you will be left [as you are] while Allah has not yet made evident those among you who strive [for His cause] and do not take other than Allah , His Messenger and the believers as intimates? And Allah is Acquainted with what you do.

It is not for the polytheists to maintain the mosques of Allah [while] witnessing against themselves with disbelief. [For] those, their deeds have become worthless, and in the Fire they will abide eternally.

The mosques of Allah are only to be maintained by those who believe in Allah and the Last Day and establish prayer and give zakah and do not fear except Allah , for it is expected that those will be of the [rightly] guided.

Have you made the providing of water for the pilgrim and the maintenance of al-Masjid al-Haram equal to [the deeds of] one who believes in Allah and the Last Day and strives in the cause of Allah ? They are not equal in the sight of Allah . And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.

The ones who have believed, emigrated and striven in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives are greater in rank in the sight of Allah . And it is those who are the attainers [of success].

Their Lord gives them good tidings of mercy from Him and approval and of gardens for them wherein is enduring pleasure.

[They will be] abiding therein forever. Indeed, Allah has with Him a great reward.

O you who have believed, do not take your fathers or your brothers as allies if they have preferred disbelief over belief. And whoever does so among you - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.

Say, [O Muhammad], "If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your relatives, wealth which you have obtained, commerce wherein you fear decline, and dwellings with which you are pleased are more beloved to you than Allah and His Messenger and jihad in His cause, then wait until Allah executes His command. And Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people."

Allah has already given you victory in many regions and [even] on the day of Hunayn, when your great number pleased you, but it did not avail you at all, and the earth was confining for you with its vastness; then you turned back, fleeing.

Then Allah sent down His tranquillity upon His Messenger and upon the believers and sent down soldiers angels whom you did not see and punished those who disbelieved. And that is the recompense of the disbelievers.

Then Allah will accept repentance after that for whom He wills; and Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?

They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.

They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it.

It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although they who associate others with Allah dislike it.

O you who have believed, indeed many of the scholars and the monks devour the wealth of people unjustly and avert [them] from the way of Allah . And those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah - give them tidings of a painful punishment.

The Day when it will be heated in the fire of Hell and seared therewith will be their foreheads, their flanks, and their backs, [it will be said], "This is what you hoarded for yourselves, so taste what you used to hoard."

Indeed, the number of months with Allah is twelve [lunar] months in the register of Allah [from] the day He created the heavens and the earth; of these, four are sacred. That is the correct religion, so do not wrong yourselves during them. And fight against the disbelievers collectively as they fight against you collectively. And know that Allah is with the righteous [who fear Him].

Indeed, the postponing [of restriction within sacred months] is an increase in disbelief by which those who have disbelieved are led [further] astray. They make it lawful one year and unlawful another year to correspond to the number made unlawful by Allah and [thus] make lawful what Allah has made unlawful. Made pleasing to them is the evil of their deeds; and Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.

O you who have believed, what is [the matter] with you that, when you are told to go forth in the cause of Allah , you adhere heavily to the earth? Are you satisfied with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But what is the enjoyment of worldly life compared to the Hereafter except a [very] little.

If you do not go forth, He will punish you with a painful punishment and will replace you with another people, and you will not harm Him at all. And Allah is over all things competent.

If you do not aid the Prophet - Allah has already aided him when those who disbelieved had driven him out [of Makkah] as one of two, when they were in the cave and he said to his companion, "Do not grieve; indeed Allah is with us." And Allah sent down his tranquillity upon him and supported him with angels you did not see and made the word of those who disbelieved the lowest, while the word of Allah - that is the highest. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.

Go forth, whether light or heavy, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the cause of Allah . That is better for you, if you only knew.

Had it been an easy gain and a moderate trip, the hypocrites would have followed you, but distant to them was the journey. And they will swear by Allah , "If we were able, we would have gone forth with you," destroying themselves [through false oaths], and Allah knows that indeed they are liars.

May Allah pardon you, [O Muhammad]; why did you give them permission [to remain behind]? [You should not have] until it was evident to you who were truthful and you knew [who were] the liars.

Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day would not ask permission of you to be excused from striving with their wealth and their lives. And Allah is Knowing of those who fear Him.

Only those would ask permission of you who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and whose hearts have doubted, and they, in their doubt, are hesitating.

And if they had intended to go forth, they would have prepared for it [some] preparation. But Allah disliked their being sent, so He kept them back, and they were told, "Remain [behind] with those who remain."

Had they gone forth with you, they would not have increased you except in confusion, and they would have been active among you, seeking [to cause] you fitnah. And among you are avid listeners to them. And Allah is Knowing of the wrongdoers.

They had already desired dissension before and had upset matters for you until the truth came and the ordinance of Allah appeared, while they were averse.

And among them is he who says, "Permit me [to remain at home] and do not put me to trial." Unquestionably, into trial they have fallen. And indeed, Hell will encompass the disbelievers.

If good befalls you, it distresses them; but if disaster strikes you, they say, "We took our matter [in hand] before," and turn away while they are rejoicing.

Say, "Never will we be struck except by what Allah has decreed for us; He is our protector." And upon Allah let the believers rely.

Say, "Do you await for us except one of the two best things while we await for you that Allah will afflict you with punishment from Himself or at our hands? So wait; indeed we, along with you, are waiting."

Say, "Spend willingly or unwillingly; never will it be accepted from you. Indeed, you have been a defiantly disobedient people."

And what prevents their expenditures from being accepted from them but that they have disbelieved in Allah and in His Messenger and that they come not to prayer except while they are lazy and that they do not spend except while they are unwilling.

So let not their wealth or their children impress you. Allah only intends to punish them through them in worldly life and that their souls should depart [at death] while they are disbelievers.

And they swear by Allah that they are from among you while they are not from among you; but they are a people who are afraid.

If they could find a refuge or some caves or any place to enter [and hide], they would turn to it while they run heedlessly.

And among them are some who criticize you concerning the [distribution of] charities. If they are given from them, they approve; but if they are not given from them, at once they become angry.

If only they had been satisfied with what Allah and His Messenger gave them and said, "Sufficient for us is Allah ; Allah will give us of His bounty, and [so will] His Messenger; indeed, we are desirous toward Allah ," [it would have been better for them].

Zakah expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy and for those employed to collect [zakah] and for bringing hearts together [for Islam] and for freeing captives [or slaves] and for those in debt and for the cause of Allah and for the [stranded] traveler - an obligation [imposed] by Allah . And Allah is Knowing and Wise.

And among them are those who abuse the Prophet and say, "He is an ear." Say, "[It is] an ear of goodness for you that believes in Allah and believes the believers and [is] a mercy to those who believe among you." And those who abuse the Messenger of Allah - for them is a painful punishment.

They swear by Allah to you [Muslims] to satisfy you. But Allah and His Messenger are more worthy for them to satisfy, if they should be believers.

Do they not know that whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger - that for him is the fire of Hell, wherein he will abide eternally? That is the great disgrace.

They hypocrites are apprehensive lest a surah be revealed about them, informing them of what is in their hearts. Say, "Mock [as you wish]; indeed, Allah will expose that which you fear."

And if you ask them, they will surely say, "We were only conversing and playing." Say, "Is it Allah and His verses and His Messenger that you were mocking?"

Make no excuse; you have disbelieved after your belief. If We pardon one faction of you - We will punish another faction because they were criminals.

The hypocrite men and hypocrite women are of one another. They enjoin what is wrong and forbid what is right and close their hands. They have forgotten Allah , so He has forgotten them [accordingly]. Indeed, the hypocrites - it is they who are the defiantly disobedient.

Allah has promised the hypocrite men and hypocrite women and the disbelievers the fire of Hell, wherein they will abide eternally. It is sufficient for them. And Allah has cursed them, and for them is an enduring punishment.

[You disbelievers are] like those before you; they were stronger than you in power and more abundant in wealth and children. They enjoyed their portion [of worldly enjoyment], and you have enjoyed your portion as those before you enjoyed their portion, and you have engaged [in vanities] like that in which they engaged. [It is] those whose deeds have become worthless in this world and in the Hereafter, and it is they who are the losers.

Has there not reached them the news of those before them - the people of Noah and [the tribes of] 'Aad and Thamud and the people of Abraham and the companions of Madyan and the towns overturned? Their messengers came to them with clear proofs. And Allah would never have wronged them, but they were wronging themselves.

The believing men and believing women are allies of one another. They enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Those - Allah will have mercy upon them. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.

Allah has promised the believing men and believing women gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they abide eternally, and pleasant dwellings in gardens of perpetual residence; but approval from Allah is greater. It is that which is the great attainment.

O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.

They swear by Allah that they did not say [anything against the Prophet] while they had said the word of disbelief and disbelieved after their [pretense of] Islam and planned that which they were not to attain. And they were not resentful except [for the fact] that Allah and His Messenger had enriched them of His bounty. So if they repent, it is better for them; but if they turn away, Allah will punish them with a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter. And there will not be for them on earth any protector or helper.

And among them are those who made a covenant with Allah , [saying], "If He should give us from His bounty, we will surely spend in charity, and we will surely be among the righteous."

But when he gave them from His bounty, they were stingy with it and turned away while they refused.

So He penalized them with hypocrisy in their hearts until the Day they will meet Him - because they failed Allah in what they promised Him and because they [habitually] used to lie.

Did they not know that Allah knows their secrets and their private conversations and that Allah is the Knower of the unseen?

Those who criticize the contributors among the believers concerning [their] charities and [criticize] the ones who find nothing [to spend] except their effort, so they ridicule them - Allah will ridicule them, and they will have a painful punishment.

Ask forgiveness for them, [O Muhammad], or do not ask forgiveness for them. If you should ask forgiveness for them seventy times - never will Allah forgive them. That is because they disbelieved in Allah and His Messenger, and Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people.

Those who remained behind rejoiced in their staying [at home] after [the departure of] the Messenger of Allah and disliked to strive with their wealth and their lives in the cause of Allah and said, 'Do not go forth in the heat." Say, "The fire of Hell is more intensive in heat" - if they would but understand.

So let them laugh a little and [then] weep much as recompense for what they used to earn.

If Allah should return you to a faction of them [after the expedition] and then they ask your permission to go out [to battle], say, "You will not go out with me, ever, and you will never fight with me an enemy. Indeed, you were satisfied with sitting [at home] the first time, so sit [now] with those who stay behind."

And do not pray [the funeral prayer, O Muhammad], over any of them who has died - ever - or stand at his grave. Indeed, they disbelieved in Allah and His Messenger and died while they were defiantly disobedient.

And let not their wealth and their children impress you. Allah only intends to punish them through them in this world and that their souls should depart [at death] while they are disbelievers.

And when a surah was revealed [enjoining them] to believe in Allah and to fight with His Messenger, those of wealth among them asked your permission [to stay back] and said, "Leave us to be with them who sit [at home]."

They were satisfied to be with those who stay behind, and their hearts were sealed over, so they do not understand.

But the Messenger and those who believed with him fought with their wealth and their lives. Those will have [all that is] good, and it is those who are the successful.

Allah has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide eternally. That is the great attainment.

And those with excuses among the bedouins came to be permitted [to remain], and they who had lied to Allah and His Messenger sat [at home]. There will strike those who disbelieved among them a painful punishment.

There is not upon the weak or upon the ill or upon those who do not find anything to spend any discomfort when they are sincere to Allah and His Messenger. There is not upon the doers of good any cause [for blame]. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Nor [is there blame] upon those who, when they came to you that you might give them mounts, you said, "I can find nothing for you to ride upon." They turned back while their eyes overflowed with tears out of grief that they could not find something to spend [for the cause of Allah ].

The cause [for blame] is only upon those who ask permission of you while they are rich. They are satisfied to be with those who stay behind, and Allah has sealed over their hearts, so they do not know.

They will make excuses to you when you have returned to them. Say, "Make no excuse - never will we believe you. Allah has already informed us of your news. And Allah will observe your deeds, and [so will] His Messenger; then you will be taken back to the Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, and He will inform you of what you used to do."

They will swear by Allah to you when you return to them that you would leave them alone. So leave them alone; indeed they are evil; and their refuge is Hell as recompense for what they had been earning.

They swear to you so that you might be satisfied with them. But if you should be satisfied with them - indeed, Allah is not satisfied with a defiantly disobedient people.

The bedouins are stronger in disbelief and hypocrisy and more likely not to know the limits of what [laws] Allah has revealed to His Messenger. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.

And among the bedouins are some who consider what they spend as a loss and await for you turns of misfortune. Upon them will be a misfortune of evil. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

But among the bedouins are some who believe in Allah and the Last Day and consider what they spend as means of nearness to Allah and of [obtaining] invocations of the Messenger. Unquestionably, it is a means of nearness for them. Allah will admit them to His mercy. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

And the first forerunners [in the faith] among the Muhajireen and the Ansar and those who followed them with good conduct - Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. That is the great attainment.

And among those around you of the bedouins are hypocrites, and [also] from the people of Madinah. They have become accustomed to hypocrisy. You, [O Muhammad], do not know them, [but] We know them. We will punish them twice [in this world]; then they will be returned to a great punishment.

And [there are] others who have acknowledged their sins. They had mixed a righteous deed with another that was bad. Perhaps Allah will turn to them in forgiveness. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Take, [O, Muhammad], from their wealth a charity by which you purify them and cause them increase, and invoke [ Allah 's blessings] upon them. Indeed, your invocations are reassurance for them. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

Do they not know that it is Allah who accepts repentance from His servants and receives charities and that it is Allah who is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful?

And say, "Do [as you will], for Allah will see your deeds, and [so, will] His Messenger and the believers. And you will be returned to the Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, and He will inform you of what you used to do."

And [there are] others deferred until the command of Allah - whether He will punish them or whether He will forgive them. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.

And [there are] those [hypocrites] who took for themselves a mosque for causing harm and disbelief and division among the believers and as a station for whoever had warred against Allah and His Messenger before. And they will surely swear, "We intended only the best." And Allah testifies that indeed they are liars.

Do not stand [for prayer] within it - ever. A mosque founded on righteousness from the first day is more worthy for you to stand in. Within it are men who love to purify themselves; and Allah loves those who purify themselves.

Then is one who laid the foundation of his building on righteousness [with fear] from Allah and [seeking] His approval better or one who laid the foundation of his building on the edge of a bank about to collapse, so it collapsed with him into the fire of Hell? And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.

Their building which they built will not cease to be a [cause of] skepticism in their hearts until their hearts are stopped. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.

Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah , so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah ? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.

[Such believers are] the repentant, the worshippers, the praisers [of Allah ], the travelers [for His cause], those who bow and prostrate [in prayer], those who enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong, and those who observe the limits [set by] Allah . And give good tidings to the believers.

It is not for the Prophet and those who have believed to ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even if they were relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are companions of Hellfire.

And the request of forgiveness of Abraham for his father was only because of a promise he had made to him. But when it became apparent to Abraham that his father was an enemy to Allah , he disassociated himself from him. Indeed was Abraham compassionate and patient.

And Allah would not let a people stray after He has guided them until He makes clear to them what they should avoid. Indeed, Allah is Knowing of all things.

Indeed, to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth; He gives life and causes death. And you have not besides Allah any protector or any helper.

Allah has already forgiven the Prophet and the Muhajireen and the Ansar who followed him in the hour of difficulty after the hearts of a party of them had almost inclined [to doubt], and then He forgave them. Indeed, He was to them Kind and Merciful.

And [He also forgave] the three who were left behind [and regretted their error] to the point that the earth closed in on them in spite of its vastness and their souls confined them and they were certain that there is no refuge from Allah except in Him. Then He turned to them so they could repent. Indeed, Allah is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful.

O you who have believed, fear Allah and be with those who are true.

It was not [proper] for the people of Madinah and those surrounding them of the bedouins that they remain behind after [the departure of] the Messenger of Allah or that they prefer themselves over his self. That is because they are not afflicted by thirst or fatigue or hunger in the cause of Allah , nor do they tread on any ground that enrages the disbelievers, nor do they inflict upon an enemy any infliction but that is registered for them as a righteous deed. Indeed, Allah does not allow to be lost the reward of the doers of good.

Nor do they spend an expenditure, small or large, or cross a valley but that it is registered for them that Allah may reward them for the best of what they were doing.

And it is not for the believers to go forth [to battle] all at once. For there should separate from every division of them a group [remaining] to obtain understanding in the religion and warn their people when they return to them that they might be cautious.

O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous.

And whenever a surah is revealed, there are among the hypocrites those who say, "Which of you has this increased faith?" As for those who believed, it has increased them in faith, while they are rejoicing.

But as for those in whose hearts is disease, it has [only] increased them in evil [in addition] to their evil. And they will have died while they are disbelievers.

Do they not see that they are tried every year once or twice but then they do not repent nor do they remember?

And whenever a surah is revealed, they look at each other, [saying], "Does anyone see you?" and then they dismiss themselves. Allah has dismissed their hearts because they are a people who do not understand.

There has certainly come to you a Messenger from among yourselves. Grievous to him is what you suffer; [he is] concerned over you and to the believers is kind and merciful.

But if they turn away, [O Muhammad], say, "Sufficient for me is Allah ; there is no deity except Him. On Him I have relied, and He is the Lord of the Great Throne."

No - I am not copying and pasting the same thing multiple times. That shit is that poorly constructed and redundant.

The entire verse is essentially a 'standing order.' It allows Muslims to make a peace treaty with the non-Muslims for rights of pilgrimage to visit the holy land. Part of this treaty is to pay a tax to Muslims. Once the treaty expires - all non-Muslims are fair game for looting and pillaging.

Muslims are commanded to wage war upon non-Muslims with a particular focus on looting the wealthy non-Muslims. They are directed in how to distribute the spoils of war, and they are also commanded to pay into the Muslim system of charity. They are also commanded to make war in the name of Allah. Those who do not make war are evil and sentenced to hell unless they have a very good reason for doing so (Allah is, after all, merciful).

9:38 O you who have believed, what is [the matter] with you that, when you are told to go forth in the cause of Allah , you adhere heavily to the earth? Are you satisfied with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But what is the enjoyment of worldly life compared to the Hereafter except a [very] little.

Why did you not go forth in the name of Allah? Death in service to Allah is better than life.

9:39 If you do not go forth, He will punish you with a painful punishment and will replace you with another people, and you will not harm Him at all. And Allah is over all things competent.

9::40 If you do not aid the Prophet - Allah has already aided him when those who disbelieved had driven him out [of Makkah] as one of two, when they were in the cave and he said to his companion, "Do not grieve; indeed Allah is with us." And Allah sent down his tranquillity upon him and supported him with angels you did not see and made the word of those who disbelieved the lowest, while the word of Allah - that is the highest. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.

This describes the invasion of Mecca after Muhammad and his followers were driven out by the non-Muslims for raiding trade caravans. It was a major strategic victory and a display of Muhammad's genius command. Here it is basically saying: "If you refuse to help the prophet, you are an unbeliever and they got the shit stomped out of them when they should have handily won."

9:47 Had they gone forth with you, they would not have increased you except in confusion, and they would have been active among you, seeking [to cause] you fitnah. And among you are avid listeners to them. And Allah is Knowing of the wrongdoers.

This is the prophet reflecting on the victory of Mecca, which is meant to reinforce the points he makes, later. He is talking about those who did not avidly join the call to arms for his revolution. Only the most loyal and dedicated people should be amongst his ranks, since those not dedicated would have fled.

9:67 The hypocrite men and hypocrite women are of one another. They enjoin what is wrong and forbid what is right and close their hands. They have forgotten Allah , so He has forgotten them [accordingly]. Indeed, the hypocrites - it is they who are the defiantly disobedient.

This boils down to "Give money to the cause or you are going to hell." And pretty much sums up the chapters between this one and the former.

9:69 [You disbelievers are] like those before you; they were stronger than you in power and more abundant in wealth and children. They enjoyed their portion [of worldly enjoyment], and you have enjoyed your portion as those before you enjoyed their portion, and you have engaged [in vanities] like that in which they engaged. [It is] those whose deeds have become worthless in this world and in the Hereafter, and it is they who are the losers.

This is a blatant threat. "I defeated people who mocked me who were stronger than you. Join me or face the same fate they did." This is meant toward those who do not agree with his rise to power but have yet to take active resistance. Since it is in the Quran, however, this is not "just for the prophet" - this is how all Muslims should handle their own rise to power.

9:70 Has there not reached them the news of those before them - the people of Noah and [the tribes of] 'Aad and Thamud and the people of Abraham and the companions of Madyan and the towns overturned? Their messengers came to them with clear proofs. And Allah would never have wronged them, but they were wronging themselves.

This reinforces the above, once again. "Have you not seen me take over a city? Do you think you will be able to stop me? I warned them just as I have warned you, and they refused. See?"

This man was not a scholar - he didn't write his own books. His speech and way of thinking were very 'blue collar.' Only pompous intellectuals would believe there is some higher meaning to be extracted from his words. He said exactly what he meant - and was very to-the-point. That is how he was able to gain appeal amongst the poor and uneducated among society.

Make no mistake - like I said - he had the "Eye of the Dragon." He could see exactly how the world worked, how people worked, and how to get the two to do what he wanted them to. He was rare even among totalitarians in that he understood the human heart as well as he understood physical reality. Which is why he was able to form and lead a peasant uprising to form a unified Arab state.

9:81 Those who remained behind rejoiced in their staying [at home] after [the departure of] the Messenger of Allah and disliked to strive with their wealth and their lives in the cause of Allah and said, 'Do not go forth in the heat." Say, "The fire of Hell is more intensive in heat" - if they would but understand.

9:82 So let them laugh a little and [then] weep much as recompense for what they used to earn.

9:83 If Allah should return you to a faction of them [after the expedition] and then they ask your permission to go out [to battle], say, "You will not go out with me, ever, and you will never fight with me an enemy. Indeed, you were satisfied with sitting [at home] the first time, so sit [now] with those who stay behind."

One must ask where this expedition was. Oh - a battle. And shame on you for staying behind when you were able to join in the war.

9:92 Nor [is there blame] upon those who, when they came to you that you might give them mounts, you said, "I can find nothing for you to ride upon." They turned back while their eyes overflowed with tears out of grief that they could not find something to spend [for the cause of Allah ].

Why does a defender need to ride to serve the cause of Allah? Should not he be able to form a defensive line around the city, or something?

9:121 Nor do they spend an expenditure, small or large, or cross a valley but that it is registered for them that Allah may reward them for the best of what they were doing.

Yep. Defensive.

9:122 And it is not for the believers to go forth [to battle] all at once. For there should separate from every division of them a group [remaining] to obtain understanding in the religion and warn their people when they return to them that they might be cautious.

The defenders need to leave defenders behind to ensure everyone continues to practice the much-beloved Islam that the evil pagans are trying to destroy.

Your "Case for a defensive war" is substantiated only in the understanding that this chapter is a command to make war against and subjugate the non-Muslims.

Anyway I never said Islam is the religion of peace. I don't buy that. I know history, I know what it was used for.

Knowing history and knowing what it was used for are two different things.

First - the term "Used for" is somewhat improper as it implies that something needs to be done with Islam in order to accomplish said ends. People do not use Islam. Islam uses people.

It is a system designed specifically to appeal to individuals seeking dominance and induct them into serving the Arab state. It gives people who never had a purpose or vision precisely that. It assigns them a value.

But do I have to remind what christianity was used for?

Go right ahead, and quote the scripture they used to justify it while you're at it.

Unlike Islam - it was not until the "Enlightenment" that Christians were physically able to read translations of the Bible. In Islam, every Muslim is supposed to memorize the Koran (this is based upon the belief that, one day, all of the text from all of the Qu'ran will be raised into heaven with God and only those who have remembered will be able to speak 'the truth.')

Which is why the scriptural argument was rarely used by any Christian nation as they went into war. In fact, much of the 'average populace' prayed to God before battle in much the same way that they did when they were Pagan rather than Christian.

The wars were far more cultural and governmental than they were religious.

Unfortunately, there is no clear distinction between culture/society, government, and religion within Islam.

We can argue for eternity about who did more sh*it (and it may very well turn out that it was the christians).

No, we can't, since there is a definitive answer. It just disagrees with your "I am wise because I choose no sides" approach.

So, to me Islam is the religion of peace as much as Christianity is the religion of love.

Islam is the religion of conquest in culture and scripture. This has remained fairly consistent with the fact anything gets done in those countries being a testament to human perseverance.

Christianity is actually hard to call a religion in terms of scripture. Jesus didn't establish a new religion. He did not command anyone to worship him. He was a martyr against the theocratic rule of the Pharisee cautioning all against the concept of religious institutions.

Culturally, Christianity has seen massive amounts of change over its history that it changes based on time and region. Further - Christianity does not establish a system of government and has limited influence on culture. Wars between Christian nations with absolutely no religious context to them are just as (if not more) common than wars with religious context.

By the time Europe became widely literate - the use of Christianity to endorse or evoke war had disappeared. Not only did this have to do with a collapse of the feudal system - but it also tied into the ability of people to read and debate religious texts - which meant that it was far more difficult for the Church to incite war for its own institutional purposes. You also had such things as the Protestant Reformation and a far broader base of religious scholars/preachers to 'bring the word to the people' - so a collapse of the large institutional churches was inevitable.

The question remains, though - without this 'centralized bureaucratic system,' Christianity is hardly ever used as a justification for war.

Yet, most Muslims have memorized the Koran.... and despite this - still commit to horrible acts of violence in the name of Islam.

Why?

The answer is in the Qu'ran.

Compare it to the Bible - and it becomes clear why those who read and believe one can't find justification for violence - while those who read and believe the other are compelled to violence with zeal.

I could also ask, how thick is your glasses of bias and hatred?

There is another reason I call it the 'Eye of the Dragon.'

I am biased and hateful by quoting the Qu'ran and interpreting it exactly as it instructs its readers to?

When I see that it specifically endorses invading, looting, subjugating and raping other cultures and say that it, plainly, is a problem... I am hateful?

Seriously?

I don't like to use the word "hate." I don't think those who have truly taken time to consider and appreciate the concept "hate" would ever like to say that they feel such a way about anything.

But if there was one thing I could attribute the word "hate" to my feelings over - it is the concept of subjugating another human. Nothing irritates me more than to see a person give into it - and nothing infuriates me more than to see another perpetrate it.

Which is a bit of my source of my own self hatred. I don't think people realize how manipulative they can be... but there are those who view the world in a different light. The way the world works is pretty clear to them. The hearts of people lay relatively bare. Many people don't understand these things consciously and can't be blamed for acting according to nature in that regard. But for those who can see the ways of the world and the ways of the hearts of those around us - manipulation and subjugation comes all too easily.

You realize that a comment you said to a lover was meant to induce pain or fear of loss rather than to promote strength and partnership. You realize that you don't actually trust the mechanisms of people and begin to see them as tools for your own amusement or worldly gain.

I realized at the turning point of my own struggle - where I had objectified even myself to such a degree that I began thinking of where and how it would hurt 'her' (a different one - not to worry) the most to find my dead body. Not because I truly wanted to die - but simply because of what it would do to her - of how it would influence her thoughts.

Some people embrace that mentality to a different ends and goal.

Others reject it.

Which is the name's sake of the "Dragon's Eye" - whose tail swept a third of the stars from the sky (a third of the angels joined him). It is also consistent with the Zodiac sign of the Dragon - a being with immense knowledge and power whose pitfall is to consolidate its control and authority.

If there is something I hate - it is the desire to use and to compel others.

I do not see the world in a simple concept of people who are alive and people who are dead. I do not base morality upon the simplistic concept of "killing is bad." While it is certainly not an act to be undertaken lightly - there are people in this world who have decided that they will not stop using and abusing until they are destroyed.

There are thrawls deluded into serving those same ends, ignorant of what they do - but no less committed. If they are not stopped, then the use and abuse will continue.

No amount of hugs. No amount of rainbows, unicorn farts, or rounds of Kumbaya are going to convince these people to stop. There is no amount of 'understanding' that is going to put an end to it. There is no cultural misunderstanding to be resolved. There is no mistranslation to be communicated.

And I'm not just talking about Islam - although Islam is probably the largest and most organized of such institutions.

Our President is another such person, as are many of those who back him within the Democratic Party.

The Republican Party is fracturing - but there is a group of people in there who follow the same guidelines, as well.

But, that's enough of my ranting.

 

[6ari8]

Correction:

The U.S. committed suicide when it went off the Gold Standard.

So if someone gives you an I.O.U after borrowing your Money (as opposed to currency) and when you go to collect he says to you, "sorry, I don't have your money, but here's some piece of paper (that is essentially another I.O.U)" he's not robbing you?

Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive 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."

Same difference.

I didn't read the rest of the post since you just took out a verse out of context. Regardless of whether you believe there is one or not, there is a known context for this one. Let's take a look at the verses surrounding it:

9:1
[This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.
9:2
So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.
9:3
And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away - then know that you will not cause failure to Allah . And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment.
9:4
Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].
9:5
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
9:6
And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.
9:7
How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].
9:8
How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient.
9:9
They have exchanged the signs of Allah for a small price and averted [people] from His way. Indeed, it was evil that they were doing.
9:10
They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors.
9:11
But if they repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, then they are your brothers in religion; and We detail the verses for a people who know.
9:12
And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease.
9:13
Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers.
9:14
Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people

And here's an article that talks about this verse:

9:5 Kill the disbelievers wherever you find them.

This verse, often called “the verse of the sword”, has been misquoted in a manner similar to the previous verses. First, we shall provide the verse in its context:

9:5-6 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. 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.

Having presented the verse in context, we can analyze it properly. Dr. Maher Hathout gives an explanation on the historical context of the verse:

This verse was revealed towards the end of the revelation period and relates to a limited context. Hostilities were frozen for a three-month period during which the Arabs pledged not to wage war. Prophet Muhammad was inspired to use this period to encourage the combatants to join the Muslim ranks or, if they chose, to leave the area that was under Muslims rule; however, if they were to resume hostilities, then the Muslims would fight back until victorious. One is inspired to note that even in this context of war, the verse concludes by emphasizing the divine attributes of mercy and forgiveness. To minimize hostilities, the Qur’an ordered Muslims to grant asylum to anyone, even an enemy, who sought refuge. Asylum would be granted according to the customs of chivalry; the person would be told the message of the Qur’an but not coerced into accepting that message. Thereafter, he or she would be escorted to safety regardless of his or her religion. (9:6). (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, pp.52-53, emphasis added)

Therefore, this verse once again refers to those pagans who would continue to fight after the period of peace. It clearly commands the Muslims to protect those who seek peace and are non-combatants. It is a specific verse with a specific ruling and can in no way be applied to general situations. The command of the verse was only to be applied in the event of a battle. As Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes:

The emphasis is on the first clause: it is only when the four months of grace are past, and the other party show no sign of desisting from their treacherous design by right conduct, that the state of war supervenes - between Faith and Unfaith. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, Text, Translation and Commentary, emphasis added)

If the pagans would not cease their hostilities towards the Muslims, then they were to be fought, especially since they were living in the land of an Islamic state. Dr. Zakir Naik writes concerning this verse:

This verse is quoted during a battle. ...We know that America was once at war with Vietnam. Suppose the President of America or the General of the American Army told the American soldiers during the war: “Wherever you find the Vietnamese, kill them”. Today if I say that the American President said, “Wherever you find Vietnamese, kill them” without giving the context, I will make him sound like a butcher. But if I quote him in context, that he said it during a war, it will sound very logical, as he was trying to boost the morale of the American soldiers during the war. ...Similarly in Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 the Qur’an says, “Kill the Mushriqs (pagans) where ever you find them”, during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Qur’an is telling Muslim soldiers is, don’t be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them. Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer to the allegation that Islam promotes violence, brutality and bloodshed. It says:

“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.” [Al-Qur’an 9:6]

The Qur’an not only says that a Mushriq seeking asylum during the battle should be granted refuge, but also that he should be escorted to a secure place. In the present international scenario, even a kind, peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don’t just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security? This is exactly what Allah (swt) says in the Glorious Qur’an to promote peace in the world. (SOURCE, emphasis added)

Dr. Naik makes some very interesting observations about the verse. Indeed, it is truly amazing how Islam-haters will ignore God’s infinite mercy in their attempt to malign Islam. God has always given human beings a way out of any suffering, and has only ordained fighting as a last resort. Muslim scholars have written much commentary on these Qur’anic verses explaining the historical context in such great detail so that there may be no misconceptions. We have quoted extensively from various commentators on these verses and there is no need to repeat the same material again. We will provide one more commentary before moving on. Professor Shahul Hameed writes on verse 9:5:
This is a verse taken from Surah At-Tawba. This chapter of the Qur’an was revealed in the context when the newly organized Muslim society in Madinah was engaged in defending themselves against the pagan aggressors. The major question dealt with here is, as to how the Muslims should treat those who break an existing treaty at will. The first clause in the verse refers to the time-honored Arab custom of a period of warning and waiting given to the offenders, after a clear violation. That is, they will be given four months’ time to repair the damage done or make peace. But if nothing happens after the expiry of these forbidden months, what should be done? This is what the present verse says. According to this verse, fighting must be resumed until one of the two things happens: Either the enemy should be vanquished by relentless fighting. That is what is meant by {then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem [of war]}; or they should repent, establish prayers and pay zakah, etc. This is one of those verses of the Qur’an which are likely to be misunderstood, if quoted out of context. We must understand that this fighting was against a people who forced the Prophet and his companions to leave not only their own homes but all their property and even their hometown of Makkah to Madinah. Once the Muslims were organized into a community in those lawless times, the rules to be followed by the Muslims were clearly laid down, even in the matter of war. Since Islam is a comprehensive system, no human activity could be ignored. And given the nature of mankind, we cannot imagine a situation where fighting is completely ruled out either. As can be seen, the above injunctions on fighting is not on an individual level, but only in the case of a society that strives to flourish and thrive as a nation. But even here the norms are clear: fighting is only in self defence or for the establishment of justice; and always fighting is the last option. And no one is allowed to transgress the limits set by God. (SOURCE, emphasis added)

Ibn al-`Arabi, in his commentary on the Qur’an, writes:

“It is clear from this that the meaning of this verse is to kill the pagans who are waging war against you.” (Ahkam al-Qur’an: 2/456, emphasis added)
Shaykh Sami al-Majid also makes some very interesting points in his discussion on this verse:

If we look at the verses in Sûrah al-Tawbah immediately before and after the one under discussion, the context of the verse becomes clear. A few verses before the one we are discussing, Allah says:

“There is a declaration of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the pagans with whom you have contracted mutual alliances. Go then, for four months, to and fro throughout the land. But know that you cannot frustrate Allah that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 1-2]

In these verses we see that the pagans were granted a four month amnesty with an indication that when the four months were over, fighting would resume. However, a following verse exempts some of them from the resumption of hostilities. It reads:

“Except for those pagans with whom you have entered into a covenant and who then do not break their covenant at all nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill your engagements with them until the end of their term, for Allah loves the righteous.” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 4]

So when Allah says: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them and beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” we must know that it is not general, since the verse above has qualified it to refer to the pagan Arabs who were actually at war with the Prophet (peace be upon him) and those who broke their covenants of peace. This is further emphasized a few verses later where Allah says:

“Will you not fight people who broke their covenants and plotted to expel the Messenger and attacked you first?” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 13] (SOURCE)

Therefore, the context of the verse within the Surah makes it clear that this refers to those who are persistent in their hostilities and attacks against Muslims, and it is applied in battle only. We recommend that one reads Shaykh Sami Al-Majid’s full article entitled There is no Compulsion in Religion.
————————————————————————————————————————

Abrogated?

The next issue with this verse concerns abrogation. It has been claimed by some that this verse 9:5 has abrogated all the peaceful verses in the Qur’an. However, this claim results from a misunderstanding of some Qur’anic concepts. In the Qur’an there is naskh and there is also takhsees. Naskh is the abrogation of a ruling by a ruling that was revealed after it. Naskh occurs in matters of Islamic law. Takhsees on the other hand refers to specification, where one verse restricts the application of another verse, or specifies the limits not mentioned in the other verse. As Shaykh Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi writes:

Specification involves one verse limiting or restricting a general ruling found in another verse, whereas naskh involves abrogating the first verse in toto (i.e., it is not applied in any circumstances or conditions). (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 233)
Shaykh Qadhi also explains that one of the conditions for naskh is that the two conflicting rulings apply to the same situation under the same circumstances, and hence there is no alternative understanding of the application of the verses. As he states:

Therefore, if one of the rulings can apply to a specific case, and the other ruling to a different case, this cannot be considered an example of naskh. (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 237)

Therefore, verse 9:5 can in no way be considered an example of naskh since it is only a ruling applied to a very specific situation and circumstances. There is a lot of confusion surrounding some verses labeled as cases of naskh because the early Muslims used to use the word naskh to refer to takhsees as well. Therefore, some Muslims failed to realize that some of these cases labeled by early Muslims as ‘naskh’ were cases of takhsees. This is why some early Muslim scholars are quoted who have classified this verse as a case of ‘naskh’. One should realize that they used the term naskh to refer to a broader range of meanings, including takhsees. As Dr. Jamal Badawi writes:

Any claim of naskh must be definitive, not based on mere opinion or speculation. It should be noted that earlier Muslims used the term naskh to refer also to takhsees or specifying and limiting the ruling than abrogating it. (SOURCE, emphasis added)

Shaykh Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi specifically addresses the confusion about verse 9:5, and after citing the different claims he concludes:

It can be seen from the examples and categories quoted that, in reality, most of these verses cannot be considered to have been abrogated in the least. Some of them merely apply to situations other than those that they were revealed for. Almost all of these ‘mansookh’ (abrogated) verses can still be said to apply when the Muslims are in a situation similar to the situation in which the verses were revealed. Thus, the ‘Verse of the Sword’ in reality does not abrogate a large number of verses; in fact, az-Zarqaanee concludes that it does not abrogate any! (fn. Az-Zarqaanee, v.2, pps.275-282) (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 254)

Shaykh Sami Al-Majid also states the same thing in his article:

Some people – especially some contemporary non-Muslim critics of Islam – have tried to claim that this verse abrogates the verse “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” They argue that the generality of this statement implies that every unbeliever who refuses to accept Islam must be fought. They support their allegation by pointing out that this verse is one of the last verses to be revealed about fighting. However, this verse in no way abrogates the principle in Islamic Law that there is no compulsion in religion. It may be general in wording, but its meaning is quite specific on account of other verses of the Qur’ân that are connected with it as well as on account of a number of pertinent hadîth. (SOURCE)

Shaykh Jamal Al-Din Zarabozo also deals with this issue in his writings on the verse “There is no compulsion in religion”. He mentions the view that this verse has been abrogated as then states:

Al-Dausiri rejects this statement because of the following: A verse cannot abrogate another verse unless it completely removes the ruling of the earlier verse and there is no way to reconcile the contradictory meanings of the verses. (Zarabozo, There is No Compulsion in Religion, Al-Basheer)

This was the view of the great scholars and mufasireen (Qur’anic commentators) both classical and recent, like Ash-Shanqeeti or Ibn Jarir At-Tabari. Shaykh Muhammad S. Al-Awa also comments on this issue in his discussion on the puunishment for apostasy:

At the same time, one can say that the death penalty for apostasy – especially when it is considered as a hadd (prescribed) punishment – contradicts the Qur’anic principle [law] in Surah II, verse 256, which proclaims “No compulsion in religion.” Ibn Hazm, to avoid this criticism, claimed that this verse had been abrogated and that compulsion is allowed in religion; consequently, according to him, the punishment for apostasy does not contradict the Qur’an (fn. Muhalla, vol. XI, p. 195). However, this claim is invalid, since Qur’anic scholars have established the abrogated verses and this verse is not among them (fn. Suyuti, Itqan, vol. II, p. 22-24). Accordingly, one can say with the Encyclopaedia of Islam that “In the Qur’an the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only.” (fn. Heffening, Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. III, p. 736 under “Murtadd”). (El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993, p. 51, emphasis added)

Therefore, when we discuss the merciful and loving verses of the Qur’an and we receive a claim that they have been abrogated by the specific verses concerning battle, we can dismiss such a claim as mere speculation and invalid. Peace and justice are fundamentals of the religion of Islam and can never be removed from it.

You must be registered for see links

 

[Aim64C]

So if someone gives you an I.O.U after borrowing your Money (as opposed to currency) and when you go to collect he says to you, "sorry, I don't have your money, but here's some piece of paper (that is essentially another I.O.U)" he's not robbing you?

This is a completely separate discussion that doesn't belong in this thread.

I will answer in brief, though.

Our currency, following our departure from the Gold standard, has been supported by two values.

First - since any business in the U.S. will accept the dollar - its value is represented by the fact that it is an accepted standard and is 'difficult' to produce/reproduce. This is comparable to the concept of Bitcoin - except it does have a centralized issuing authority. This worked fine until the U.S. budget began spending hideously more than it took in for revenues. This meant that printing of the dollar would directly drive inflation.

To curb this, we come to our second method of assigning value to the dollar.

Investment - promise to, after a given time period, pay back a greater number of dollars than was originally invested. This scheme works for short-term borrowing to cover big-ticket items. Unfortunately - it does not work for long periods of time. So we have to bolster it with something else - such as signing an agreement with as many nations as possible that allows oil to only be traded for a specific bank note.

This means that anyone - regardless of nationality - who wants to purchase such a demanded commodity as oil must invest in the debt of a nation and allows regular printing of well beyond revenue values.

While this is 'robbery' - as you put it - it is also economic suicide. You simply have upgraded from a handgun to a suicide vest.

But most Americans, and indeed most foreign nationals - have no clue as to how this system works. Many government officials also fail to understand exactly how it works. People simply go on believing that everything will 'be okay' - that they will always be able to 'write something' that will 'fix any problems.'

You can't fully blame modern politicians for believing this. For the past 30 years, or more - government has been an insanely powerful entity. It is believed that it has the power to do virtually anything with the stroke of a pen or with the funding of a project. The people in those offices have become disconnected from the physical reality that underpins the magical powers of cooperation, and they are about to get a very rude reality check.

We all are.

So - to call it robbery is not completely false - but it is also a very limited and short-sighted interpretation of events. The reality is that the value is being stolen not from other countries - but from the dollar, itself. Only fools would choose to invest in the dollar. Even now - most of the people who serve as the point of sale for the bonds immediately exchange them for the commodities they wish to buy - and those firms almost immediately turn it over to hedge funds and retirement fund operators who regularly invest in such things because they are 'stable.'

I didn't read the rest of the post since you just took out a verse out of context. Regardless of whether you believe there is one or not, there is a known context for this one. Let's take a look at the verses surrounding it:

Just did that for all of Chapter 9 for you.

Let's check your reading comprehension, shall we?

What is happening?

Spoiler

Jews and Christians are trying to visit the holy land that has recently been conquered by the Arabs.

Why is there a peace treaty?

Spoiler

As will be noted later, the Jews, Christians, and other groups have begun sending armies in in response to the killing of Jews and Christians on their pilgrimage to the holy land. As this revelation is mentioned within the Hadith, many of the prophet's followers begin questioning how they will get their funding if they are no longer allowed to loot the pilgrims. This is where a tax is prescribed for protection.

Are there limits to the treaty?

Spoiler

Violate the treaty by failing to pay tax or by failing to yield to Muslims and be killed. Also, there is a time limit.

What happens when the treaty expires?

Spoiler

Non-muslims are to be killed.

I actually quote all of Surat 9 in my previous post.

You should actually sit down and read it. It isn't long. It isn't difficult to understand. The first two passages deal primarily with funding. The rest boils down to "God hates people who do not fight battles in his name" and "God commands you to make war with non-muslims adjacent to you."

And here's an article that talks about this verse:

You must be registered for see links

Oh, goodie.

And what am I supposed to do with that?

You have a brain. Read the Koran.

Find, for you, where it speaks of peace and tolerance. What passages in the Qu'ran fill you with warm-fuzzies. I'd be glad to hear them.

We can get a little Qu'ran study going, here.

You know - like Bible Study - only even more peaceful and tolerant because it's the great religion of Islam.

 

[6ari8]

^^^^^
What are you even talking about? What does the holy land (I assume you mean Jerusalem) have to do with these verses?
It isn't even mentioned once in this surah.

I'm a native Arabic speaker and have read the Quran cover to cover many times so I can read those verses perfectly fine. There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. You should check yours...

The Verses are talking about the Treaty of Hudaibiya and the pilgrimage in the verse is the first pilgrimage of the Muslims that was to happen a year after the treaty. The polytheists mentioned here are the Meccans that drove out the Muslims out from there.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive 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."

Same difference.

The following verse explains that only those of the disbelievers are to be punished who 'have been deficient towards you or supported someone against you'. And I see someone else already quoted a commentary on that verse.

No - it is not.

The Koran is -not- open to interpretation.

But that's the same you are doing though as well.

Interpretation (Oxford dictionary):

1 The action of explaining the meaning of something

If you cherrypick sentences- that alters the meaning. I could quote the Bible: "There is no god" (Psalms 14:1) Yeah, except that the first half of the sentence is: "The fool says in his heart: "

This is where Westerners get confused - comparing the Koran to the Bible. It's no such thing. There is no scriptural equivalent in any religion equal to the Koran in Islam.

I was talking about the importance of translations though, in regard of abrogation. As it's indeed not the same if you translate 'ayat' as verse (and then 'we replace a verse with a better one') or miracle/sign -as in many translations (and then it is 'we replace a sign/miracle with a greater one).

The Koran could be best compared to the Ten Commandments and the "Holy Grail" that is alleged to contain them - except you were looking at direct copies of the Ten Commandments with the same reverence as the Holy Grail.

This is why Muslims flip shit when Korans are burned or desecrated. It's worse than pissing on the base of a Christian Cross.

Let's see how the Koran describes itself, shall we?

4:174 O mankind, there has come to you a conclusive proof from your Lord, and We have sent down to you a clear light.

10:37 And it was not [possible] for this Qur'an to be produced by other than Allah , but [it is] a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation of the [former] Scripture, about which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds.

26:2 These are the verses of the clear Book.

And the final synch?

16:64 And We have not revealed to you the Book, [O Muhammad], except for you to make clear to them that wherein they have differed and as guidance and mercy for a people who believe.

It is a book that contains all detail necessary to eliminate differences amongst the believers.

Yes the Quran is supposed to be the perfect, unchangeable word of god. But then how does abrogation make sense? How comes that humans can decide which verses to abrogate with which ones? That results in altering god's word.

It even warns that it is not supposed to be interpreted:

39:41 Indeed, We sent down to you the Book for the people in truth. So whoever is guided - it is for [the benefit of] his soul; and whoever goes astray only goes astray to its detriment. And you are not a manager over them.

It's funny that you quote that verse coz it actually says that people can choose to go astray on their own detriment, and it's not the muslim's responsibility to manage them, that is, to force them

(You may have been confused about this verse, otherwise you wouldn't have posted in this context, as it's irrelevant to interpreting the Quran. Another translation [Faridul Haque]may highlight it better:

"We have indeed sent down this Book to you with the truth, in order to guide mankind; so whoever attains guidance has attained it is for his own good, and whoever strays, has strayed for his own harm; and you are not at all responsible for them." )

This firmly establishes that the Koran is superior to any worldly interpretation.

Yes, and that's why I don't understand why you refer to the tradition in the hadith, as to how they interpreted the Quran- as their word or tradition is not above the highest source itself.

Except it is not refutable.

The Koran specifically says it is not.

Interesting, coz the Quran also says in 2:76:

"And when they meet those who believe, they say, "We have believed"; but when they are alone with one another, they say, "Do you talk to them about what Allah has revealed to you so they can argue with you about it before your Lord?" Then will you not reason?"

Which makes it your problem.

It's like claiming that a serial killer is 'misunderstood' and 'his actions can be interpreted in a different way.'

That's fine - but I'm telling you that if you let the serial killer out and try to make friends with and 'understand' him - you're going to end up dead and quite possibly other people, as well. I suppose you can interpret reality to mean whatever you want - but that gets into a philosophical discussion on the meaning of life.

I am biased and hateful by quoting the Qu'ran and interpreting it exactly as it instructs its readers to?

When I see that it specifically endorses invading, looting, subjugating and raping other cultures and say that it, plainly, is a problem... I am hateful?

Seriously?

I don't like to use the word "hate." I don't think those who have truly taken time to consider and appreciate the concept "hate" would ever like to say that they feel such a way about anything.

But if there was one thing I could attribute the word "hate" to my feelings over - it is the concept of subjugating another human. Nothing irritates me more than to see a person give into it - and nothing infuriates me more than to see another perpetrate it.

Which is a bit of my source of my own self hatred. I don't think people realize how manipulative they can be... but there are those who view the world in a different light. The way the world works is pretty clear to them. The hearts of people lay relatively bare. Many people don't understand these things consciously and can't be blamed for acting according to nature in that regard. But for those who can see the ways of the world and the ways of the hearts of those around us - manipulation and subjugation comes all too easily.

You realize that a comment you said to a lover was meant to induce pain or fear of loss rather than to promote strength and partnership. You realize that you don't actually trust the mechanisms of people and begin to see them as tools for your own amusement or worldly gain.

I realized at the turning point of my own struggle - where I had objectified even myself to such a degree that I began thinking of where and how it would hurt 'her' (a different one - not to worry) the most to find my dead body. Not because I truly wanted to die - but simply because of what it would do to her - of how it would influence her thoughts.

Some people embrace that mentality to a different ends and goal.

Others reject it.

Which is the name's sake of the "Dragon's Eye" - whose tail swept a third of the stars from the sky (a third of the angels joined him). It is also consistent with the Zodiac sign of the Dragon - a being with immense knowledge and power whose pitfall is to consolidate its control and authority.

If there is something I hate - it is the desire to use and to compel others.

I do not see the world in a simple concept of people who are alive and people who are dead. I do not base morality upon the simplistic concept of "killing is bad." While it is certainly not an act to be undertaken lightly - there are people in this world who have decided that they will not stop using and abusing until they are destroyed.

There are thrawls deluded into serving those same ends, ignorant of what they do - but no less committed. If they are not stopped, then the use and abuse will continue.

No amount of hugs. No amount of rainbows, unicorn farts, or rounds of Kumbaya are going to convince these people to stop. There is no amount of 'understanding' that is going to put an end to it. There is no cultural misunderstanding to be resolved. There is no mistranslation to be communicated.

And I'm not just talking about Islam - although Islam is probably the largest and most organized of such institutions.

Our President is another such person, as are many of those who back him within the Democratic Party.

The Republican Party is fracturing - but there is a group of people in there who follow the same guidelines, as well.

But, that's enough of my ranting.

You know that I have no interest in wasting time over defending something I don't even believe in either, right? If I'm playing the devil's advocate (kinda), that's simply because I think it's fallacious to identify Islam with terrorism. You say that terrorism is 'true' or 'real' Islam.

But is there such a thing as 'true' Islam? Is there 'true' Christianity? Is there a 'true' religion? Religions are man-made. I don't think I have to lecture you about it. Humans are viloent, and caring as well. Hence their religions have both violent, and both loving passages.

The 3 Abrahamic religions basically worship the same monotheistic god. This god sometimes wipes out millions, sometimes forgives them. As an atheist, I won't blame a man-made concept, or a holy book written by men- I blame the humans who made that up.

First - the term "Used for" is somewhat improper as it implies that something needs to be done with Islam in order to accomplish said ends. People do not use Islam. Islam uses people.

You say people don't use Islam- but Islam uses people. Uhm...what? It's not like the Quran is a living creature who wrote itself and forced people to obey it It's the other way round. It's just a collection of teachings. You know, people didn't/don't need religions- or, specifically the Quran- to fight each other. Yes, most wars were waged not just because of religion. Same goes for terrorism. It has societal, economical, political, ethnical reasons as well. But I guess I don't have to tell about it to someone who's been trained in the army. To me it very much seems that the teachings of said religion are used to amplify the already existing tensions of those unstable societies that are always more vulnerable to ideological crises.

But alright. Aim Almighty has spoken. Islam is the enemy. So Islam shall perish. It's either them or us, after all. So what now? Tell your government not to fund them, that may be a good start. Or forget it, Obama and his administration are traitors, let's just execute them. (Sasuke, much? ) Now Aim for president.

And it's time to show your true colors. Because the real problem is not just terrorism. They could be handled- the US has the military for it. (Though, I don't want to act all smart about what I don't know of, so if I'm mistaken- you are free to correct me- not that you need my permission anyway.) The problem is more like demographic. Immigration. Muslims migrate to western countries- and they're supposed to overpopulate them. You already know what happened to the Roman Empire- you see the same is happening to the US and Europe. In the end, it's a 'clash of cultures'- and the West shall rise victorious, as there can be no other way. The alternative is not an option.

First let's kick immigrants out. Now what about "peaceful" muslims? It's best to deal with them as well. As long as the Quran, and its ideology exists, there is always a possibility that some muslims will choose to follow the 'real' Islam. So let's systematically gather immigrants, and...send them back to Asia and let them deal with their own crap, so the US (and other western powers) will never interfere with them anymore? No...that won't solve anything, muslims won't stop until they conquer the whole world. So let's annihilate them. All 1,6 billion. (And I guess let's burn their Qurans and scriptures as well, and destroy their mosques). It will be the biggest genocide in history- but it's for the better, and it's standard anyways in history. This is what is practical. It's better to go forth with this as soon as possible- before it's too late. Did I miss something?

And now tell me that those muslims don't feel threatened.

hatred (Merriam- Webster):

noun \ˈhā-trəd\

- a very strong feeling of dislike

If you say things like Islam is the worst thing that ever happened to mankind, and it is to be eliminated- that seems like a rather strong feeling of dislike (=hatred) to me.

Don't get me wrong. I see your point. Actually, I could even agree with you. I guess we are standing on two different paradigms. To you, freedom is the highest value, to me it's life.

I'm going to put all of Surat 9 in spoiler tags, then excerpt where it is you have gotten confused as to the chapter's meaning:

Spoiler

No - I am not copying and pasting the same thing multiple times. That shit is that poorly constructed and redundant.

The entire verse is essentially a 'standing order.' It allows Muslims to make a peace treaty with the non-Muslims for rights of pilgrimage to visit the holy land. Part of this treaty is to pay a tax to Muslims. Once the treaty expires - all non-Muslims are fair game for looting and pillaging.

Muslims are commanded to wage war upon non-Muslims with a particular focus on looting the wealthy non-Muslims. They are directed in how to distribute the spoils of war, and they are also commanded to pay into the Muslim system of charity. They are also commanded to make war in the name of Allah. Those who do not make war are evil and sentenced to hell unless they have a very good reason for doing so (Allah is, after all, merciful).

9:38 O you who have believed, what is [the matter] with you that, when you are told to go forth in the cause of Allah , you adhere heavily to the earth? Are you satisfied with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But what is the enjoyment of worldly life compared to the Hereafter except a [very] little.

Why did you not go forth in the name of Allah? Death in service to Allah is better than life.

9:39 If you do not go forth, He will punish you with a painful punishment and will replace you with another people, and you will not harm Him at all. And Allah is over all things competent.

9::40 If you do not aid the Prophet - Allah has already aided him when those who disbelieved had driven him out [of Makkah] as one of two, when they were in the cave and he said to his companion, "Do not grieve; indeed Allah is with us." And Allah sent down his tranquillity upon him and supported him with angels you did not see and made the word of those who disbelieved the lowest, while the word of Allah - that is the highest. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.

This describes the invasion of Mecca after Muhammad and his followers were driven out by the non-Muslims for raiding trade caravans. It was a major strategic victory and a display of Muhammad's genius command. Here it is basically saying: "If you refuse to help the prophet, you are an unbeliever and they got the shit stomped out of them when they should have handily won."

9:47 Had they gone forth with you, they would not have increased you except in confusion, and they would have been active among you, seeking [to cause] you fitnah. And among you are avid listeners to them. And Allah is Knowing of the wrongdoers.

This is the prophet reflecting on the victory of Mecca, which is meant to reinforce the points he makes, later. He is talking about those who did not avidly join the call to arms for his revolution. Only the most loyal and dedicated people should be amongst his ranks, since those not dedicated would have fled.

9:67 The hypocrite men and hypocrite women are of one another. They enjoin what is wrong and forbid what is right and close their hands. They have forgotten Allah , so He has forgotten them [accordingly]. Indeed, the hypocrites - it is they who are the defiantly disobedient.

This boils down to "Give money to the cause or you are going to hell." And pretty much sums up the chapters between this one and the former.

9:69 [You disbelievers are] like those before you; they were stronger than you in power and more abundant in wealth and children. They enjoyed their portion [of worldly enjoyment], and you have enjoyed your portion as those before you enjoyed their portion, and you have engaged [in vanities] like that in which they engaged. [It is] those whose deeds have become worthless in this world and in the Hereafter, and it is they who are the losers.

This is a blatant threat. "I defeated people who mocked me who were stronger than you. Join me or face the same fate they did." This is meant toward those who do not agree with his rise to power but have yet to take active resistance. Since it is in the Quran, however, this is not "just for the prophet" - this is how all Muslims should handle their own rise to power.

9:70 Has there not reached them the news of those before them - the people of Noah and [the tribes of] 'Aad and Thamud and the people of Abraham and the companions of Madyan and the towns overturned? Their messengers came to them with clear proofs. And Allah would never have wronged them, but they were wronging themselves.

This reinforces the above, once again. "Have you not seen me take over a city? Do you think you will be able to stop me? I warned them just as I have warned you, and they refused. See?"

This man was not a scholar - he didn't write his own books. His speech and way of thinking were very 'blue collar.' Only pompous intellectuals would believe there is some higher meaning to be extracted from his words. He said exactly what he meant - and was very to-the-point. That is how he was able to gain appeal amongst the poor and uneducated among society.

Make no mistake - like I said - he had the "Eye of the Dragon." He could see exactly how the world worked, how people worked, and how to get the two to do what he wanted them to. He was rare even among totalitarians in that he understood the human heart as well as he understood physical reality. Which is why he was able to form and lead a peasant uprising to form a unified Arab state.

9:81 Those who remained behind rejoiced in their staying [at home] after [the departure of] the Messenger of Allah and disliked to strive with their wealth and their lives in the cause of Allah and said, 'Do not go forth in the heat." Say, "The fire of Hell is more intensive in heat" - if they would but understand.

9:82 So let them laugh a little and [then] weep much as recompense for what they used to earn.

9:83 If Allah should return you to a faction of them [after the expedition] and then they ask your permission to go out [to battle], say, "You will not go out with me, ever, and you will never fight with me an enemy. Indeed, you were satisfied with sitting [at home] the first time, so sit [now] with those who stay behind."

One must ask where this expedition was. Oh - a battle. And shame on you for staying behind when you were able to join in the war.

9:92 Nor [is there blame] upon those who, when they came to you that you might give them mounts, you said, "I can find nothing for you to ride upon." They turned back while their eyes overflowed with tears out of grief that they could not find something to spend [for the cause of Allah ].

Why does a defender need to ride to serve the cause of Allah? Should not he be able to form a defensive line around the city, or something?

9:121 Nor do they spend an expenditure, small or large, or cross a valley but that it is registered for them that Allah may reward them for the best of what they were doing.

Yep. Defensive.

9:122 And it is not for the believers to go forth [to battle] all at once. For there should separate from every division of them a group [remaining] to obtain understanding in the religion and warn their people when they return to them that they might be cautious.

The defenders need to leave defenders behind to ensure everyone continues to practice the much-beloved Islam that the evil pagans are trying to destroy.

Your "Case for a defensive war" is substantiated only in the understanding that this chapter is a command to make war against and subjugate the non-Muslims.

The chapter establishes the necessity of war, I don't see though why the violent verses should abrogate the peaceful ones, when there is no need for that- as they are not necessarily in contradiction with each other. Some verses establish the necessity of fighting- other verses outline the conditions/limits for the fights.

Knowing history and knowing what it was used for are two different things.

Did I say they are the same? I used a comma. Just because two statements are in the same sentence, it doesn't make them identical. (And now please don't tell me that I'm hiding behind semantics, coz then I must say you have a problem with that.)

It is a system designed specifically to appeal to individuals seeking dominance and induct them into serving the Arab state. It gives people who never had a purpose or vision precisely that. It assigns them a value.

To me that just further proves that religions are man-made (it's kinda obvious anyway). And that said, it's up to people what they make out of it. I gave you my reasons why I don't identify Islam with terrorism, you gave me yours. Again, my point was not to prove that Islam is the religion of peace- just to show that peaceful muslims have valid and legit arguments as to why those verses don't necessarily mean to do what terrorists do. You don't have to accept those reasons- but then don't complain that Islam can't be reformed. I think annihilation should always be a last resort- not a preventive thing.

Go right ahead, and quote the scripture they used to justify it while you're at it.

I thought you know the Bible well enough Lol Anyway, I bet that you'd explain why those verses don't encourage violence- in which case I'll just say that it's not to be interpreted: the text is clear.

Unlike Islam - it was not until the "Enlightenment" that Christians were physically able to read translations of the Bible. In Islam, every Muslim is supposed to memorize the Koran (this is based upon the belief that, one day, all of the text from all of the Qu'ran will be raised into heaven with God and only those who have remembered will be able to speak 'the truth.')

Which is why the scriptural argument was rarely used by any Christian nation as they went into war. In fact, much of the 'average populace' prayed to God before battle in much the same way that they did when they were Pagan rather than Christian.

The wars were far more cultural and governmental than they were religious.

Unfortunately, there is no clear distinction between culture/society, government, and religion within Islam.

Doesn't change the fact that Christian teachings didn't stop Christians from doing what they did. In fact, the greatest crimes can be committed in the name of love. Torture and death in this world are better than eternal hellfire after all- so out of love, let's save the souls of heretics and the pagan savages.

No, we can't, since there is a definitive answer. It just disagrees with your "I am wise because I choose no sides" approach.

And you know that Christians shed more blood then muslims Lol Numbers are indeed definitive.

And what are you talking about? The world is not black and white. (Maybe if you took off that sunglasses of yours, you'd see ). I'm not religious, but it doesn't mean I have to agree that Islam is terrorism and it's the worst thing happened to mankind (World War I- and WWII as its consequence-were much worse, and it was started by Christian powers. Sure, it had not much to do with religions, but then again, it just proves that religions alone don't make people better. Jesus said, judge a tree by its fruits. In that sense, Christians are nothing better. Sure, the ideology of Islam is more dangerous- yet most muslims are 'moderate'. You can say that they don't follow 'real' islam- but 99% of so called Christians nowadays don't follow the teachings of the Bible properly, either. Now you may say I'm making the fallacy of comparing Christianity to Islam- no, I'm not comparing their teachings, but the deeds of their followers. I insist that religions are what people make out of them. You may interpret the Quran that it allows no interpretation- but what you say by that, is basically placing traditional interpretation over the Quran itself. Just because ancient muslims interpreted it in one way, I don't see why would that mean they were right about everything. Anyway, some guys here can give you better explanations by muslim scholars.)

I honestly don't know why you say I'm not taking sides o.o As you can see, I'm not religious, I take the side of atheism. (Who said I can only choose between Christianity or Islam?)
When it comes to the question, is Islam a religion of peace? I say no. So I take one side.
But when the question is, is Islam the religion of terror? I also say no. So I take a side.
Should Islam be eliminated-as it's the worst thing ever happened to mankind? No- so I take a side.
Is Christianity the religion of love? No- so I took my side.
Is Christianity the religion of violence? Of course not- I choose a side.
Should Christianity be wiped out? No- I chose one side.

Islam is the religion of conquest in culture and scripture. This has remained fairly consistent with the fact anything gets done in those countries being a testament to human perseverance.

Christianity is actually hard to call a religion in terms of scripture. Jesus didn't establish a new religion. He did not command anyone to worship him. He was a martyr against the theocratic rule of the Pharisee cautioning all against the concept of religious institutions.

He did give a 'new testament' to his disciples, that was supposed to replace the Mosaic law. Sounds like the roots for a new religion. He told Peter that 'upon this rock I will build my church'. Now you can link me thousands of interpretations about it if you want to- but even a '5 yrs old' would read it as what it is.

And yes, Jesus never said that he is god and should be worshipped- yet that's what some of his followers ended up doing.

Culturally, Christianity has seen massive amounts of change over its history that it changes based on time and region. Further - Christianity does not establish a system of government and has limited influence on culture. Wars between Christian nations with absolutely no religious context to them are just as (if not more) common than wars with religious context.

By the time Europe became widely literate - the use of Christianity to endorse or evoke war had disappeared. Not only did this have to do with a collapse of the feudal system - but it also tied into the ability of people to read and debate religious texts - which meant that it was far more difficult for the Church to incite war for its own institutional purposes. You also had such things as the Protestant Reformation and a far broader base of religious scholars/preachers to 'bring the word to the people' - so a collapse of the large institutional churches was inevitable.

The question remains, though - without this 'centralized bureaucratic system,' Christianity is hardly ever used as a justification for war.

Yet, most Muslims have memorized the Koran.... and despite this - still commit to horrible acts of violence in the name of Islam.

Why?

The answer is in the Qu'ran.

Compare it to the Bible - and it becomes clear why those who read and believe one can't find justification for violence - while those who read and believe the other are compelled to violence with zeal.

Yes, most people were illiterate that time- so it was the privilege of the church and the priests to interpret and teach the Bible.

The church made a perfect ideological basis for feudalism.

Sure, religion itself was almost never the reason for war- however, the rulers, warlords...etc. had the ideological support/approval of the church. Marching under the cross, in the name of god.
Same with muslims, but again, you don't need religions to trigger wars. It's just easier to convince people to fight if they think they do it for a greater purpose, and that they get salvation for that. The Seljuk Turks, for example, who later formed the Ottoman Empire, were militant nomads even before they converted to Islam. Same with the tribes that invaded Europe, converted to Christianity and formed their kingdoms.

In short, I understand (at least I hope I do) that you say Islam is inherently bad and violent so it must disappear, history proves that as well....etc. But based on the reasons I've said, the teachings can be interpreted in a peaceful way too (despite you'll just probably again say 'no'- in which case: I just say 'ok'). I only brought up Christianity because if you say that history proves that the teachings of Islam are bad by default, then looking at history...well Christians were not much better. Regardless of the original intentions of the authors. Even the path to hell is paved by good intentions, they say. Even the best teachings could be ignored, and the worst deeds could be done in the name of love. As religions are made by man- they can't be abstracted from the people who follow them. How would you eliminate a religion, unless you kill its followers? ... And that I won't approve. You say that I can interpret reality whatever way I want- it will get me killed. Well the reality is that most muslims are peaceful. If they'll (try to) take over the west- then we'll fight them ( I guess? ). You know that my country was occupied by muslims for hundreds of years. For centuries, the west was protected by the blood of our people. They failed once- if they'll succeed now: well that's how history is. If by any chance that happens- I'll come back and say you were right xD Though I assume by then it won't make a difference.

 

[Benjamin King]

@Aim64C, no offence, but you need to learn about Islam and ignore what protesters say, because they have no idea about Islam. All of the statements you quote from the Quran are completely taken out of context. And furthermore, you put your faith on the words of non-Muslims and those who have no education about Islam than the Muslims themselves.

 

[Aim64C]

^^^^^
What are you even talking about? What does the holy land (I assume you mean Jerusalem) have to do with these verses?
It isn't even mentioned once in this surah.

You're not too bright, are ya, feller?

Where was Mohammed conducting his conquest?

I'm a native Arabic speaker and have read the Quran cover to cover many times so I can read those verses perfectly fine. There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. You should check yours...

Obviously, there's something broken. Either you can't read. Can't comprehend. Or believe that message to somehow be consistent with modern society.

The Verses are talking about the Treaty of Hudaibiya and the pilgrimage in the verse is the first pilgrimage of the Muslims that was to happen a year after the treaty. The polytheists mentioned here are the Meccans that drove out the Muslims out from there.

Again, you can't read.

Those who believe not in Allah, nor the Last Day, nor that which Allah and his prophet hath forbidden from among the people of the book

This is the clear book. That explains all things expounded in detail.

You've read it. Or claim to have. What is it about "Fight" and "those who believe not in Allah" that you don't comprehend?

This is not a passage about specific enemies and outlines the pattern Mohammed used for his conquest of other areas. If it were to be limited to specific enemies - would not the passage be clear about this?

It is not. Mohammed subjugated the surrounding lands even after the delivery of this verse and those who accompanied Mohammed followed through with the same tactics. To defend the verse as meaning to apply only to specific enemies is a failure to read what is written plainly on the page.

But we are at a point where this debate is running in circles. All of your challenges have already been answered by Mohammed, himself - who stands firmly against your "it's limited" 'true understanding.'

Which is precisely why people like you are being executed by ISIS (assuming you're not recruiting for them).

The following verse explains that only those of the disbelievers are to be punished who 'have been deficient towards you or supported someone against you'. And I see someone else already quoted a commentary on that verse.

Surat 9:123 O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous.

But that's the same you are doing though as well.

Interpretation (Oxford dictionary):

1 The action of explaining the meaning of something

If you cherrypick sentences- that alters the meaning. I could quote the Bible: "There is no god" (Psalms 14:1) Yeah, except that the first half of the sentence is: "The fool says in his heart: "

I just quoted the whole ****ing chapter - and you accuse me of "cherry picking."

READ IT.

Here's the link if you don't believe me:

You must be registered for see links

You can even choose between different translations, view the original arabic, or translate to languages other than English.

It outlines pretty clearly what the hell you're supposed to do. You're supposed to make war in the name of Allah, and he'll send you to hell for not going to war.

Weak.

I was talking about the importance of translations though, in regard of abrogation. As it's indeed not the same if you translate 'ayat' as verse (and then 'we replace a verse with a better one') or miracle/sign -as in many translations (and then it is 'we replace a sign/miracle with a greater one).

So if one sign tells you to have orgies in the streets.

Then the later sign tells you to massacre people in the streets.

Do we end up with massive rape-murder in the streets?

You can translate that to mean different words - but it doesn't change the effective meaning. The sign that comes later is the superior sign - the superior wisdom, the 'better way.'

Yes the Quran is supposed to be the perfect, unchangeable word of god. But then how does abrogation make sense? How comes that humans can decide which verses to abrogate with which ones? That results in altering god's word.

This is why anyone who claims to read, understand, and believe the Qu'ran should not be trusted to do much more than to slit your throat in the middle of the night.

The only way to believe it is to forsake even the most basic amounts of skepticism. Why in the hell would any book -not- be arranged either chronologically or according to topic?

That doesn't mean that these people are 'stupid' or that they are incapable of reason - many of them come from a culture where skepticism regarding Islamic texts is met with death (because the Koran essentially commands as such) - so it can't be entirely laid on their shoulders.

Regardless - it is those people who will still end up suffering the consequences.

It's funny that you quote that verse coz it actually says that people can choose to go astray on their own detriment, and it's not the muslim's responsibility to manage them, that is, to force them

(You may have been confused about this verse, otherwise you wouldn't have posted in this context, as it's irrelevant to interpreting the Quran. Another translation [Faridul Haque]may highlight it better:

"We have indeed sent down this Book to you with the truth, in order to guide mankind; so whoever attains guidance has attained it is for his own good, and whoever strays, has strayed for his own harm; and you are not at all responsible for them." )

You should know much better than to go for the low-lying fruit I leave for you, by now.

It says that people can choose to go astray. Not that they can choose to disbelieve. There's a functional difference.

Yes, and that's why I don't understand why you refer to the tradition in the hadith, as to how they interpreted the Quran- as their word or tradition is not above the highest source itself.

Do you understand the importance of the Hadith?

God revealed to Mohammed the Qu'ran (if Islamic tradition is to be believed - though secular review of the scripture has demonstrated this to not be the case). Hohammed was God's prophet - the 'perfect man' who most perfectly embodied God's way.

The Hadith are a collection of scriptures accounting Mohammed's life.

Thus - whatever Mohammed did - it is very likely that you should do that. The only reason you might want to consider not doing so is because the perspective of the Hadith is limited by the author and not (according to Islamic tradition) protected from alteration by Allah.

But, now, we have already logically defeated the Koran - as many of its conflicts and schizophrenic dialogue can only be reconciled by looking at the behavior of Mohammed (meaning it isn't clear).

Mohammed's behavior, as described in the Hadith, is superior to any other man's 'interpretation' of the Qu'ran. He is the man all Muslims should attempt to emulate.

Which is precisely what ISIS is doing very well - albeit with some adaptations for the times.

Interesting, coz the Quran also says in 2:76:

"And when they meet those who believe, they say, "We have believed"; but when they are alone with one another, they say, "Do you talk to them about what Allah has revealed to you so they can argue with you about it before your Lord?" Then will you not reason?"

Now who is cherry-picking?

Spoiler

2:67 And [recall] when Moses said to his people, "Indeed, Allah commands you to slaughter a cow." They said, "Do you take us in ridicule?" He said, "I seek refuge in Allah from being among the ignorant."

They said, "Call upon your Lord to make clear to us what it is." [Moses] said, "[ Allah ] says, 'It is a cow which is neither old nor virgin, but median between that,' so do what you are commanded."

They said, "Call upon your Lord to show us what is her color." He said, "He says, 'It is a yellow cow, bright in color - pleasing to the observers.' "

They said, "Call upon your Lord to make clear to us what it is. Indeed, [all] cows look alike to us. And indeed we, if Allah wills, will be guided."

He said, "He says, 'It is a cow neither trained to plow the earth nor to irrigate the field, one free from fault with no spot upon her.' " They said, "Now you have come with the truth." So they slaughtered her, but they could hardly do it.

And [recall] when you slew a man and disputed over it, but Allah was to bring out that which you were concealing.

So, We said, "Strike the slain man with part of it." Thus does Allah bring the dead to life, and He shows you His signs that you might reason.

Then your hearts became hardened after that, being like stones or even harder. For indeed, there are stones from which rivers burst forth, and there are some of them that split open and water comes out, and there are some of them that fall down for fear of Allah . And Allah is not unaware of what you do.

Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort the Torah after they had understood it while they were knowing?

And when they meet those who believe, they say, "We have believed"; but when they are alone with one another, they say, "Do you talk to them about what Allah has revealed to you so they can argue with you about it before your Lord?" Then will you not reason?

But do they not know that Allah knows what they conceal and what they declare?

And among them are unlettered ones who do not know the Scripture except in wishful thinking, but they are only assuming.

2:79 So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

Uh. Yeah. It's not to be refuted.

You know that I have no interest in wasting time over defending something I don't even believe in either, right? If I'm playing the devil's advocate (kinda), that's simply because I think it's fallacious to identify Islam with terrorism. You say that terrorism is 'true' or 'real' Islam.

But is there such a thing as 'true' Islam? Is there 'true' Christianity? Is there a 'true' religion? Religions are man-made. I don't think I have to lecture you about it. Humans are viloent, and caring as well. Hence their religions have both violent, and both loving passages.

*sigh*

This is the fallacious 'appeal to center.' "There must be some truth and some lie to everything."

Islam is not a person. It is difficult to really call a religion in the sense of Western religions that are distinct from social and governmental norms.

Islam is a state. It is an authority unto itself. Few other religions have assigned themselves literal reign over the entire planet. Few religions have such an aim to unify all beings under one hierarchy. Islam is all of these things.

The exception is the westernized idiots who hear it is a 'great religion' and join its social practices without ever bothering to understand what they have joined. They will serve to spread the concept of Islam until the 'radicals' who are teaching the susceptible among them the 'true ways.' Then the 'moderates' and the non-muslims will be subjugated. This is, again, how it has been done in the past. Look at all of the protests supporting palestine, supporting ISIS, and the people who have actually traveled to join ISIS. Many of them are born and raised by genuinely good people who decided it would be fun to be a Muslim.

The 3 Abrahamic religions basically worship the same monotheistic god. This god sometimes wipes out millions, sometimes forgives them. As an atheist, I won't blame a man-made concept, or a holy book written by men- I blame the humans who made that up.

Islam is not an abrahamic religion. It is a state religion created by the Arab state to perpetuate and expand the Arab state.

This is what makes it fundamentally different from the Jews and the Christians.

You say people don't use Islam- but Islam uses people. Uhm...what? It's not like the Quran is a living creature who wrote itself and forced people to obey it It's the other way round. It's just a collection of teachings. You know, people didn't/don't need religions- or, specifically the Quran- to fight each other. Yes, most wars were waged not just because of religion. Same goes for terrorism. It has societal, economical, political, ethnical reasons as well. But I guess I don't have to tell about it to someone who's been trained in the army. To me it very much seems that the teachings of said religion are used to amplify the already existing tensions of those unstable societies that are always more vulnerable to ideological crises.

As a member of the military - I've become accustomed to recognizing systems of indoctrination - specific ways you can elicit people to change and to do what you want them to do.

There's a specific trait I have mentioned a few times that comes in handy, as well.

Islam is a system of indoctrinating people into a life of marauding thuggery adhering to a very rigid social system designed to breed women for the purpose of replacing the losses of said marauding while increasing the size of the empire to support more marauding.

Which is precisely what ISIS is doing, right now, with the order of mass raping to impregnate women who will birth future soldiers for ISIS. What are these children going to be taught? All they will know is what ISIS has taught them. Anyone who has studied Islam knew this would be exactly what they do. They are even using it as a part of the recruiting drive, trying to entice men into fighting for them at the prospect of being able to have *** slaves.

But alright. Aim Almighty has spoken. Islam is the enemy. So Islam shall perish. It's either them or us, after all. So what now? Tell your government not to fund them, that may be a good start. Or forget it, Obama and his administration are traitors, let's just execute them. (Sasuke, much? ) Now Aim for president.

This is a failure to understand Sasuke (who plans to destroy the world and recreate it according to his ideals).

This is also a failure to understand what is coming. America will become more of a region than a government.

And it's time to show your true colors. Because the real problem is not just terrorism. They could be handled- the US has the military for it. (Though, I don't want to act all smart about what I don't know of, so if I'm mistaken- you are free to correct me- not that you need my permission anyway.) The problem is more like demographic. Immigration. Muslims migrate to western countries- and they're supposed to overpopulate them. You already know what happened to the Roman Empire- you see the same is happening to the US and Europe. In the end, it's a 'clash of cultures'- and the West shall rise victorious, as there can be no other way. The alternative is not an option.

First let's kick immigrants out. Now what about "peaceful" muslims? It's best to deal with them as well. As long as the Quran, and its ideology exists, there is always a possibility that some muslims will choose to follow the 'real' Islam. So let's systematically gather immigrants, and...send them back to Asia and let them deal with their own crap, so the US (and other western powers) will never interfere with them anymore? No...that won't solve anything, muslims won't stop until they conquer the whole world. So let's annihilate them. All 1,6 billion. (And I guess let's burn their Qurans and scriptures as well, and destroy their mosques). It will be the biggest genocide in history- but it's for the better, and it's standard anyways in history. This is what is practical. It's better to go forth with this as soon as possible- before it's too late. Did I miss something?

A few things.

First - Islam does not survive a rational mind.

What must absolutely be done is cultural. It cannot be done by the government, nor, really, by the mass media. The secular debate of Muslim scripture must be taken to the sidewalks outside of Mosques in the west and to the lunch rooms of colleges.

This forces something Islam is not at all used to - debate.

This is the best way to defeat Islam in the west.

It could be argued that the "round them up" method would work - but the reality is that much of the west believes in the free practice of religion and does not understand how Islam is the religion of usurping nations. Thus you would end up having to 'round up' nearly two Americans for every Muslim (or more) - and if things get to that point - then there are better ways.

The Middle East needs to be left alone for now. People need to see what happens when Islam is allowed to operate.

Then the time will come for an invasion.

This will have to be a real invasion. We are not winning hearts and minds. There will be no government 'of and by' their people for at least 20 years. During that time - we lay down the law. They will not be allowed to subjugate each other. They will not be allowed to beat women. All of our criminal laws regarding abuse will apply and be aggressively prosecuted. There will be no attempts to impede commerce. Machinists will not be forced to make rockets or bombs.

Then we allow them to replace the seats we establish for them with their own elected officials, slowly, until we finally allow them to form committees to draft their own constitution.

None of this "let them have control" stuff until well after the cycle of indoctrination has been shattered.

This will not completely eliminate Islam - but it will eliminate it as a state long enough to allow the concept of secular law to take root and for the economy to root into a free market. This shifts a society to a more rational one where literary discourse is expected and valued for its practical effect.

This will be imperfect in many of those regions as there is a considerable amount of tribal affiliation - but it should be sufficient to bring them into at least the 20th century.

Alternatively - a simple policy of "kill the men, leave the women" would work. Though it's a bit more hard nosed than even I'd prefer.

And now tell me that those muslims don't feel threatened.

The sane ones who don't understand their religion are threatened. The ones who do understand simply see it as validation of their god's command to kill.

A person like myself is something of every fundamentalist's wet-dream, as killing me is a chance to prove the might of Allah against those who challenge him. The thought that I might possibly raise an army to try and strike down their religion will simply make them salivate at the opportunity to be martyred.

hatred (Merriam- Webster):

noun \ˈhā-trəd\

- a very strong feeling of dislike

If you say things like Islam is the worst thing that ever happened to mankind, and it is to be eliminated- that seems like a rather strong feeling of dislike (=hatred) to me.

Definitions really fail to describe the emotion of hate.

Hate is the absolute erotic pleasure at bearing witness to suffering. That is hatred as I understand it. Which makes it hard to apply to an idea - but the sentiment is still preserved.

Which is why I don't like the term "hate" - since it conveys something far deeper than dislike. It is the actual like of seeing something suffer - to see it crumble, and be destroyed. There's nothing logical about it. There's nothing rational about it. It is just the pure pleasure of seeing something suffer.

I realize that is how many people use it - to mean a very strong feeling of dislike... but 'detest' works there.

Perhaps I missed my calling as a linguist, since I like to put each word into its own unique box and be very deliberate with my choice of synonyms.

Don't get me wrong. I see your point. Actually, I could even agree with you. I guess we are standing on two different paradigms. To you, freedom is the highest value, to me it's life.

I think that launches into a question of what life is.

Are you alive as a slave?

Is a girl who will be beaten, raped, and forbidden from anything other than service alive?

Are you alive when all you can do is what you are told? Or when any free action of your own comes with the knowledge you may lose what little life you have?

If all you can aspire to do is to serve and breed more servants - then what mark do you leave? What meaning does the 'life' you have really hold?

This is why I value freedom. Not just for myself - but for others, particularly those I would have as my children.

Life is far more than simply the lack of being dead. Death is simply the final step of life as we know it - not the antithesis of life. It is the only guarantee we get.

Defining "life" as "not dead" is like defining "there" as "not here."

The chapter establishes the necessity of war, I don't see though why the violent verses should abrogate the peaceful ones, when there is no need for that- as they are not necessarily in contradiction with each other. Some verses establish the necessity of fighting- other verses outline the conditions/limits for the fights.

There are no limits on the fighting spare for where there is a treaty in effect and tribute is being paid by those passing through Muslim lands.

Did I say they are the same? I used a comma. Just because two statements are in the same sentence, it doesn't make them identical. (And now please don't tell me that I'm hiding behind semantics, coz then I must say you have a problem with that.)

You implied that, by knowing the history of Islam, you knew what it was used for.

See - I used a comma, too.

My point is what I largely re-iterated above regarding how Islam is a system that uses people as opposed to a people that use a system.

To me that just further proves that religions are man-made (it's kinda obvious anyway). And that said, it's up to people what they make out of it. I gave you my reasons why I don't identify Islam with terrorism, you gave me yours. Again, my point was not to prove that Islam is the religion of peace- just to show that peaceful muslims have valid and legit arguments as to why those verses don't necessarily mean to do what terrorists do. You don't have to accept those reasons- but then don't complain that Islam can't be reformed. I think annihilation should always be a last resort- not a preventive thing.

The only way the religion can be reformed is to outright reject it as having next to no historical basis and the text of the Qu'ran to have been a composite of various scriptures and regional beliefs rather than the word of God - which collapses the whole concept of the religion - which is, essentially, that God commanded Mohammed to form an empire and that this empire would be God's chosen empire to rule over all of humanity with the Qu'ran as the literal word of God that has been unadulterated since the day it was compiled by Uthman.

Proving that the Koran existed in fragments centuries before Mohammed - and that the Koran didn't really come into existence until hundreds of years after Mohammed essentially destroys the religion beyond repair. You have to outright reject reality.

I thought you know the Bible well enough Lol Anyway, I bet that you'd explain why those verses don't encourage violence- in which case I'll just say that it's not to be interpreted: the text is clear.

I know the Bible quite well.

Which is why I'm presenting this challenge to you.

The problem that you aren't aware of (but your brain is) consists of the stark difference between the Qu'ran and the Bible in terms of its scripture. The Bible is arranged chronologically according to chapter - with a few exceptions being books like Psalms (a collection of songs and praises often used by the Hebrews) and Revelations (****ing nuts). Events are authored in sequence and the writing is often as a narrative as compared to the Qu'ran being a collection of decrees.

This means that the scripture of the Bible is inherently contextual. Anything that is allegedly the word of God -must- be taken within the context of the delivery (which is often detailed). While there are sections that can be argued to have sweeping applications outside of the historical context - the Bible portrays many characters convening directly with God from all walks of life - therefor an overall literary context exists for God's wisdom to be bestowed upon those who ask for it as opposed to having been delivered in whole at one source.

Thus, even within religious tradition - Jews and Christians see the Bible and Torah as more of an account of divine encounters and wisdom through the ages as opposed to a set of divine decrees.

Thus, every passage within the Bible is understood to have a limited context within the history described by the passage. Wisdom must be extrapolated from that context.

Doesn't change the fact that Christian teachings didn't stop Christians from doing what they did. In fact, the greatest crimes can be committed in the name of love. Torture and death in this world are better than eternal hellfire after all- so out of love, let's save the souls of heretics and the pagan savages.

And you point is?

And you know that Christians shed more blood then muslims Lol Numbers are indeed definitive.

Then let us see them.

And what are you talking about? The world is not black and white. (Maybe if you took off that sunglasses of yours, you'd see ). I'm not religious, but it doesn't mean I have to agree that Islam is terrorism and it's the worst thing happened to mankind (World War I- and WWII as its consequence-were much worse, and it was started by Christian powers. Sure, it had not much to do with religions, but then again, it just proves that religions alone don't make people better. Jesus said, judge a tree by its fruits. In that sense, Christians are nothing better. Sure, the ideology of Islam is more dangerous- yet most muslims are 'moderate'. You can say that they don't follow 'real' islam- but 99% of so called Christians nowadays don't follow the teachings of the Bible properly, either. Now you may say I'm making the fallacy of comparing Christianity to Islam- no, I'm not comparing their teachings, but the deeds of their followers. I insist that religions are what people make out of them. You may interpret the Quran that it allows no interpretation- but what you say by that, is basically placing traditional interpretation over the Quran itself. Just because ancient muslims interpreted it in one way, I don't see why would that mean they were right about everything. Anyway, some guys here can give you better explanations by muslim scholars.)

I believe you are confused, little buddy.

You cite numbers as 'facts' - but give no references.

99% of Muslims aren't pious?

You must be registered for see links

Notice something in common, there?

Sharia law.

But most Muslims don't pay attention to that.

Nope.

I honestly don't know why you say I'm not taking sides o.o As you can see, I'm not religious, I take the side of atheism. (Who said I can only choose between Christianity or Islam?)
When it comes to the question, is Islam a religion of peace? I say no. So I take one side.
But when the question is, is Islam the religion of terror? I also say no. So I take a side.
Should Islam be eliminated-as it's the worst thing ever happened to mankind? No- so I take a side.
Is Christianity the religion of love? No- so I took my side.
Is Christianity the religion of violence? Of course not- I choose a side.
Should Christianity be wiped out? No- I chose one side.

True, but now you have placed yourself in so many different fields that you have no idea where to stand or how to decide.

He did give a 'new testament' to his disciples, that was supposed to replace the Mosaic law. Sounds like the roots for a new religion. He told Peter that 'upon this rock I will build my church'. Now you can link me thousands of interpretations about it if you want to- but even a '5 yrs old' would read it as what it is.

He didn't replace Mosaic Law. He created what was known as the New Covenant (which I would have to look to see if that is mentioned by Jesus, himself, or if that is simply by commentators after him) - which is the Covenant made with God and Abraham. If Jesus did anything in regards to a 'new religion' - it was to say that God was no longer only for the descendants of Abraham - but for all people. Although my knowledge of that is more dogmatic than scriptural - so I'd have to look into that.

And yes, Jesus never said that he is god and should be worshipped- yet that's what some of his followers ended up doing.

Just like some Muslims believe it's okay for them to live in ways other than what the Qu'ran describes.

Yes, most people were illiterate that time- so it was the privilege of the church and the priests to interpret and teach the Bible.

The church made a perfect ideological basis for feudalism.

Sure, religion itself was almost never the reason for war- however, the rulers, warlords...etc. had the ideological support/approval of the church. Marching under the cross, in the name of god.
Same with muslims, but again, you don't need religions to trigger wars. It's just easier to convince people to fight if they think they do it for a greater purpose, and that they get salvation for that. The Seljuk Turks, for example, who later formed the Ottoman Empire, were militant nomads even before they converted to Islam. Same with the tribes that invaded Europe, converted to Christianity and formed their kingdoms.

In short, I understand (at least I hope I do) that you say Islam is inherently bad and violent so it must disappear, history proves that as well....etc. But based on the reasons I've said, the teachings can be interpreted in a peaceful way too (despite you'll just probably again say 'no'- in which case: I just say 'ok'). I only brought up Christianity because if you say that history proves that the teachings of Islam are bad by default, then looking at history...well Christians were not much better. Regardless of the original intentions of the authors. Even the path to hell is paved by good intentions, they say. Even the best teachings could be ignored, and the worst deeds could be done in the name of love. As religions are made by man- they can't be abstracted from the people who follow them. How would you eliminate a religion, unless you kill its followers? ... And that I won't approve. You say that I can interpret reality whatever way I want- it will get me killed. Well the reality is that most muslims are peaceful. If they'll (try to) take over the west- then we'll fight them ( I guess? ). You know that my country was occupied by muslims for hundreds of years. For centuries, the west was protected by the blood of our people. They failed once- if they'll succeed now: well that's how history is. If by any chance that happens- I'll come back and say you were right xD Though I assume by then it won't make a difference.

I think the key 'tie' you are missing in your logic is the simple fact that Christianity has not endured as a culture of conquest while Islam has.

What became of the Germanic tribes? What became of the Norse?

While their cultures cannot be denied - their history is distinctly different from those of Islam.

Religion has more influence over society than many people realize. Asia was dominated by worship of emperors - and look at how their culture and economy have generally responded. Compare that to Islamic nations and to the Christian nations.

but this is getting long and my cat is trying to eat my arms... I think we've come to a mutual understanding of lack of understandings - at this point, it's just arguing for the sake of arguing. Which I take to like many men take to bars and alcohol.

@Aim64C, no offence, but you need to learn about Islam and ignore what protesters say, because they have no idea about Islam. All of the statements you quote from the Quran are completely taken out of context. And furthermore, you put your faith on the words of non-Muslims and those who have no education about Islam than the Muslims themselves.

Seriously?

Surat 26 - please recite it for me.

I'll help you with the relevant parts:

26:2 These are the verses of the clear Book.

26:3 Perhaps, [O Muhammad], you would kill yourself with grief that they will not be believers.

26:4 If We willed, We could send down to them from the sky a sign for which their necks would remain humbled.

26:5 And no revelation comes to them anew from the Most Merciful except that they turn away from it.

26:192 And indeed, the Qur'an is the revelation of the Lord of the worlds.

26:193 The Trustworthy Spirit has brought it down

26:194 Upon your heart, [O Muhammad] - that you may be of the warners -

26:195 In a clear Arabic language.

You must be registered for see links

Out of context?

Requiring guidance?

This is a clear book sent from Allah to make things clear - the legacy of Lot, Moses, Noah, etc will be made clear and defined by Mohammed.

You don't need scholars to understand what is plainly written (once you put all the verses in an intelligible order... seriously, what the ****, Allah?)

Mohammed was not a scholar:

26:111 They said, "Should we believe you while you are followed by the lowest [class of people]?"

26:112 He said, "And what is my knowledge of what they used to do?

26:113 Their account is only upon my Lord, if you [could] perceive.

26:114 And I am not one to drive away the believers.

26:115 I am only a clear warner."

The people who followed him were not what one would call the most literate (NOW the Qu'ran makes sense...). It was meant to be understood by the 'blue collar' person.

But - yeah - I should learn more about Islam and pay attention to all of the scholars... but which scholars? The ones who say that beheading and the taking of slaves is permitted?

Or the ones in the west who insist everything Islam has been doing for the past 1400 years has been taken out of context?

*shrug*

Gee... I'm not sure who I should believe, there.

Just how much do you know about Islam, there kiddo?

 

[Scooby Doo]

Surat 9:123 O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous.

That is the last verse that talks about violence, so if anything, this should be crucial, right? Now this verse no way says that go to faraway countries and blow yourself up, right?

And in other translations, to me it seems it talks about defending borders :


Shakir
O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

Dr. Ghali
O you who have believed, fight the ones of the steadfast disbelievers who border on you and let them find in you (a) harshness; and know that Allah is with the pious.

And again, why would this abrogate every 'peaceful' verse, when there is no need for that.

However, this conversation is entering a phase I'd rather avoid. Simply because I'm not muslim, so I don't want to talk in their name. I don't want to be a self appointed representative, and make the wrong impression u.u

I just quoted the whole ****ing chapter - and you accuse me of "cherry picking."

Spoiler

READ IT.

Here's the link if you don't believe me:

You must be registered for see links

You can even choose between different translations, view the original arabic, or translate to languages other than English.

It outlines pretty clearly what the hell you're supposed to do. You're supposed to make war in the name of Allah, and he'll send you to hell for not going to war.

Weak.



So if one sign tells you to have orgies in the streets.

Then the later sign tells you to massacre people in the streets.

Do we end up with massive rape-murder in the streets?

You can translate that to mean different words - but it doesn't change the effective meaning. The sign that comes later is the superior sign - the superior wisdom, the 'better way.'



This is why anyone who claims to read, understand, and believe the Qu'ran should not be trusted to do much more than to slit your throat in the middle of the night.

The only way to believe it is to forsake even the most basic amounts of skepticism. Why in the hell would any book -not- be arranged either chronologically or according to topic?

That doesn't mean that these people are 'stupid' or that they are incapable of reason - many of them come from a culture where skepticism regarding Islamic texts is met with death (because the Koran essentially commands as such) - so it can't be entirely laid on their shoulders.

Regardless - it is those people who will still end up suffering the consequences.

You did that before. And you are emphasizing certain verses like the 5th or 123rd. Why not the peaceful verses of that chapter? You also quote from the hadith how violent Muhammad was, why not quote the parts where he says that Jews should be equal and not opressed (it's also in Ibn Ishaq)? Hm?

You should know much better than to go for the low-lying fruit I leave for you, by now.

It says that people can choose to go astray. Not that they can choose to disbelieve. There's a functional difference.

Astray from the guidance of Allah and the Prophet, yeah Can humans read minds to tell what others believe?

Spoiler

Do you understand the importance of the Hadith?

God revealed to Mohammed the Qu'ran (if Islamic tradition is to be believed - though secular review of the scripture has demonstrated this to not be the case). Hohammed was God's prophet - the 'perfect man' who most perfectly embodied God's way.

The Hadith are a collection of scriptures accounting Mohammed's life.

Thus - whatever Mohammed did - it is very likely that you should do that. The only reason you might want to consider not doing so is because the perspective of the Hadith is limited by the author and not (according to Islamic tradition) protected from alteration by Allah.

But, now, we have already logically defeated the Koran - as many of its conflicts and schizophrenic dialogue can only be reconciled by looking at the behavior of Mohammed (meaning it isn't clear).

Mohammed's behavior, as described in the Hadith, is superior to any other man's 'interpretation' of the Qu'ran. He is the man all Muslims should attempt to emulate.

Which is precisely what ISIS is doing very well - albeit with some adaptations for the times.

Now who is cherry-picking?

Spoiler

2:67 And [recall] when Moses said to his people, "Indeed, Allah commands you to slaughter a cow." They said, "Do you take us in ridicule?" He said, "I seek refuge in Allah from being among the ignorant."

They said, "Call upon your Lord to make clear to us what it is." [Moses] said, "[ Allah ] says, 'It is a cow which is neither old nor virgin, but median between that,' so do what you are commanded."

They said, "Call upon your Lord to show us what is her color." He said, "He says, 'It is a yellow cow, bright in color - pleasing to the observers.' "

They said, "Call upon your Lord to make clear to us what it is. Indeed, [all] cows look alike to us. And indeed we, if Allah wills, will be guided."

He said, "He says, 'It is a cow neither trained to plow the earth nor to irrigate the field, one free from fault with no spot upon her.' " They said, "Now you have come with the truth." So they slaughtered her, but they could hardly do it.

And [recall] when you slew a man and disputed over it, but Allah was to bring out that which you were concealing.

So, We said, "Strike the slain man with part of it." Thus does Allah bring the dead to life, and He shows you His signs that you might reason.

Then your hearts became hardened after that, being like stones or even harder. For indeed, there are stones from which rivers burst forth, and there are some of them that split open and water comes out, and there are some of them that fall down for fear of Allah . And Allah is not unaware of what you do.

Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort the Torah after they had understood it while they were knowing?

And when they meet those who believe, they say, "We have believed"; but when they are alone with one another, they say, "Do you talk to them about what Allah has revealed to you so they can argue with you about it before your Lord?" Then will you not reason?

But do they not know that Allah knows what they conceal and what they declare?

And among them are unlettered ones who do not know the Scripture except in wishful thinking, but they are only assuming.

2:79 So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

Uhm, and? The verse I quoted encouraged muslims to reason with the Jews.

You must be registered for see links

*sigh*

This is the fallacious 'appeal to center.' "There must be some truth and some lie to everything."

Islam is not a person. It is difficult to really call a religion in the sense of Western religions that are distinct from social and governmental norms.

Islam is a state. It is an authority unto itself. Few other religions have assigned themselves literal reign over the entire planet. Few religions have such an aim to unify all beings under one hierarchy. Islam is all of these things.

Spoiler

The exception is the westernized idiots who hear it is a 'great religion' and join its social practices without ever bothering to understand what they have joined. They will serve to spread the concept of Islam until the 'radicals' who are teaching the susceptible among them the 'true ways.' Then the 'moderates' and the non-muslims will be subjugated. This is, again, how it has been done in the past. Look at all of the protests supporting palestine, supporting ISIS, and the people who have actually traveled to join ISIS. Many of them are born and raised by genuinely good people who decided it would be fun to be a Muslim.

What? A religion is not separate from the society in which it is created. It represents the norms of the society.

Jesus told his desciples to go and make followers of all people in the world. Sounds like a global mission.

Islam is not an abrahamic religion.

Spoiler

It is a state religion created by the Arab state to perpetuate and expand the Arab state.

This is what makes it fundamentally different from the Jews and the Christians.

Wiki disagrees.

You must be registered for see links

Spoiler

As a member of the military - I've become accustomed to recognizing systems of indoctrination - specific ways you can elicit people to change and to do what you want them to do.

There's a specific trait I have mentioned a few times that comes in handy, as well.

Islam is a system of indoctrinating people into a life of marauding thuggery adhering to a very rigid social system designed to breed women for the purpose of replacing the losses of said marauding while increasing the size of the empire to support more marauding.

Which is precisely what ISIS is doing, right now, with the order of mass raping to impregnate women who will birth future soldiers for ISIS. What are these children going to be taught? All they will know is what ISIS has taught them. Anyone who has studied Islam knew this would be exactly what they do. They are even using it as a part of the recruiting drive, trying to entice men into fighting for them at the prospect of being able to have *** slaves.

This is a failure to understand Sasuke (who plans to destroy the world and recreate it according to his ideals).

I just compared a certain aspect of your ideas to a certain aspect of his idea.

This is also a failure to understand what is coming. America will become more of a region than a government.

Well, you know your country better. Let's see.

Spoiler

A few things.

First - Islam does not survive a rational mind.

What must absolutely be done is cultural. It cannot be done by the government, nor, really, by the mass media. The secular debate of Muslim scripture must be taken to the sidewalks outside of Mosques in the west and to the lunch rooms of colleges.

This forces something Islam is not at all used to - debate.

This is the best way to defeat Islam in the west.

It could be argued that the "round them up" method would work - but the reality is that much of the west believes in the free practice of religion and does not understand how Islam is the religion of usurping nations. Thus you would end up having to 'round up' nearly two Americans for every Muslim (or more) - and if things get to that point - then there are better ways.

The Middle East needs to be left alone for now. People need to see what happens when Islam is allowed to operate.

Then the time will come for an invasion.

This will have to be a real invasion. We are not winning hearts and minds. There will be no government 'of and by' their people for at least 20 years. During that time - we lay down the law. They will not be allowed to subjugate each other. They will not be allowed to beat women. All of our criminal laws regarding abuse will apply and be aggressively prosecuted. There will be no attempts to impede commerce. Machinists will not be forced to make rockets or bombs.

Then we allow them to replace the seats we establish for them with their own elected officials, slowly, until we finally allow them to form committees to draft their own constitution.

None of this "let them have control" stuff until well after the cycle of indoctrination has been shattered.

This will not completely eliminate Islam - but it will eliminate it as a state long enough to allow the concept of secular law to take root and for the economy to root into a free market. This shifts a society to a more rational one where literary discourse is expected and valued for its practical effect.

This will be imperfect in many of those regions as there is a considerable amount of tribal affiliation - but it should be sufficient to bring them into at least the 20th century.

Alternatively - a simple policy of "kill the men, leave the women" would work. Though it's a bit more hard nosed than even I'd prefer.



The sane ones who don't understand their religion are threatened. The ones who do understand simply see it as validation of their god's command to kill.

A person like myself is something of every fundamentalist's wet-dream, as killing me is a chance to prove the might of Allah against those who challenge him. The thought that I might possibly raise an army to try and strike down their religion will simply make them salivate at the opportunity to be martyred.



Definitions really fail to describe the emotion of hate.

Hate is the absolute erotic pleasure at bearing witness to suffering. That is hatred as I understand it. Which makes it hard to apply to an idea - but the sentiment is still preserved.

Which is why I don't like the term "hate" - since it conveys something far deeper than dislike. It is the actual like of seeing something suffer - to see it crumble, and be destroyed. There's nothing logical about it. There's nothing rational about it. It is just the pure pleasure of seeing something suffer.

I realize that is how many people use it - to mean a very strong feeling of dislike... but 'detest' works there.

Perhaps I missed my calling as a linguist, since I like to put each word into its own unique box and be very deliberate with my choice of synonyms.

I think that launches into a question of what life is.

Are you alive as a slave?

Is a girl who will be beaten, raped, and forbidden from anything other than service alive?

Are you alive when all you can do is what you are told? Or when any free action of your own comes with the knowledge you may lose what little life you have?

If all you can aspire to do is to serve and breed more servants - then what mark do you leave? What meaning does the 'life' you have really hold?

This is why I value freedom. Not just for myself - but for others, particularly those I would have as my children.

Life is far more than simply the lack of being dead. Death is simply the final step of life as we know it - not the antithesis of life. It is the only guarantee we get.

Defining "life" as "not dead" is like defining "there" as "not here."

Oh well. Sure there are worse things than death. But many people rather choose to be slaves than die. It's subjective.

Maybe it's irrelevant, but may be of some interest. A Hungarian novelist wrote in a book about a moral dilemma. (The novel takes place in the 1950s if my memory serves- the era of communism.) A few friends are talking in a pub. One of them proposes a question. Let's say, there is a slave. He has a family, he is a good man, he is happy. His master decides to take away his beautiful wife. The master kills the children, and cuts off the slave's arm. In the strory, there is no afterlife, so the master has nothing to fear of, he doesn't feel remorse either. Yet, the slave also knows he is innocent. The question was: who would you choose to be? The "evil" master, or the "innocent" slave? (Without any hope for justice in the afterlife). Out of the 5 friends, 4 said that they'd choose to be the master. Only one chose to be the slave. Next day, some "secret agents" take them to interrogation. They are willing to let the 5 friends go, if they slap a dying man on a cross. If they refuse, they die. The 4 friends, who chose to be the masters, refuse to hit the fellow. They get killed. The man who said he'd be the slave- hit the man and went home. It turns out in the end that he had war orphans to take care of.

My point is what I largely re-iterated above regarding how Islam is a system that uses people as opposed to a people that use a system.

But a system is made by the people, therefore it can be changed be the people.

There are no limits on the fighting spare for where there is a treaty in effect and tribute is being paid by those passing through Muslim lands.

You implied that, by knowing the history of Islam, you knew what it was used for.

See - I used a comma, too.



The only way the religion can be reformed is to outright reject it as having next to no historical basis and the text of the Qu'ran to have been a composite of various scriptures and regional beliefs rather than the word of God - which collapses the whole concept of the religion - which is, essentially, that God commanded Mohammed to form an empire and that this empire would be God's chosen empire to rule over all of humanity with the Qu'ran as the literal word of God that has been unadulterated since the day it was compiled by Uthman.

Proving that the Koran existed in fragments centuries before Mohammed - and that the Koran didn't really come into existence until hundreds of years after Mohammed essentially destroys the religion beyond repair. You have to outright reject reality.

Here is a video that I think resonates with your points, and I kinda have to agree. There are reformists, though. That Maajid Nawaz for example, in the video, seems like a reasonable fellow.

[video=youtube;rh34Xsq7D_A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh34Xsq7D_A[/video]

I know the Bible quite well.

Which is why I'm presenting this challenge to you.

Alright.

Mathew 5: 29-30: If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Matthew 10: 34-35: Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Romans 1: 26-32: Because people did those things, God left them and let them do the shameful things they wanted to do. Women stopped having natural *** with men and started having *** with other women. In the same way, men stopped having natural *** with women and began wanting each other all the time. Men did shameful things with other men, and in their bodies they received the punishment for those wrongs.Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Romans 13: 4-5: For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

Matthew 28:19: So go and make followers of all people in the world. Baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. [He didn't add: peacefully]

Now before you say these are out of context and theologists explained their 'real' meaning: doesn't matter if that's what the church and christians ended up doing.

Spoiler

The problem that you aren't aware of (but your brain is) consists of the stark difference between the Qu'ran and the Bible in terms of its scripture. The Bible is arranged chronologically according to chapter - with a few exceptions being books like Psalms (a collection of songs and praises often used by the Hebrews) and Revelations (****ing nuts). Events are authored in sequence and the writing is often as a narrative as compared to the Qu'ran being a collection of decrees.

This means that the scripture of the Bible is inherently contextual. Anything that is allegedly the word of God -must- be taken within the context of the delivery (which is often detailed). While there are sections that can be argued to have sweeping applications outside of the historical context - the Bible portrays many characters convening directly with God from all walks of life - therefor an overall literary context exists for God's wisdom to be bestowed upon those who ask for it as opposed to having been delivered in whole at one source.

Thus, even within religious tradition - Jews and Christians see the Bible and Torah as more of an account of divine encounters and wisdom through the ages as opposed to a set of divine decrees.

Thus, every passage within the Bible is understood to have a limited context within the history described by the passage. Wisdom must be extrapolated from that context.

And you point is?

Didn't you know that the inquisition tortured heretics "out of love", to save their souls?

Then let us see them.



I believe you are confused, little buddy.

You cite numbers as 'facts' - but give no references.

I'm sure you can google it up for yourself. And again, more people died in WW I and WW II than in the previous wars before. That alone should be enough to prove that Islam is not the worst thing ever happened.

But here is a link:

You must be registered for see links

Note: Read the comments as well. The guy gave his sources, I haven't gone through all. If you want to debate about that, I suggest you contact the author.

Spoiler

99% of Muslims aren't pious?

You must be registered for see links

Notice something in common, there?

Sharia law.

But most Muslims don't pay attention to that.

Nope.

True, but now you have placed yourself in so many different fields that you have no idea where to stand or how to decide.

Because to me the question is not as simple as is Islam either the religion of peace or terror.

He didn't replace Mosaic Law. He created what was known as the New Covenant (which I would have to look to see if that is mentioned by Jesus, himself, or if that is simply by commentators after him) - which is the Covenant made with God and Abraham. If Jesus did anything in regards to a 'new religion' - it was to say that God was no longer only for the descendants of Abraham - but for all people. Although my knowledge of that is more dogmatic than scriptural - so I'd have to look into that.

He did give a new command to his disciples: to love each other because that's what marks you as my followers (that was at the Last Supper if my memory serves). John 13: 34-35

Even before that, he said that "Do for others what you would want them to do for you. This is the meaning of the Law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets." Matthew 7: 12.

Also, when he died, he basically fulfilled the purpose of the Mosaic Law, and the prophets, so there is no need for those anymore.

Jesus originally came only for the Jews (Matthew 15: 24: But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." )
It was the apostles, mostly Paul ( who was called the 'apostle of nations' ) that delivered the gospels for other nations. After the Jews refused Christ, the message was open to everyone. And Jesus still said 'I base my church upon this rock'. (Matthew 16 18)

Just like some Muslims believe it's okay for them to live in ways other than what the Qu'ran describes.



I think the key 'tie' you are missing in your logic is the simple fact that Christianity has not endured as a culture of conquest while Islam has.

What became of the Germanic tribes? What became of the Norse?

While their cultures cannot be denied - their history is distinctly different from those of Islam.

Religion has more influence over society than many people realize. Asia was dominated by worship of emperors - and look at how their culture and economy have generally responded. Compare that to Islamic nations and to the Christian nations.

but this is getting long and my cat is trying to eat my arms... I think we've come to a mutual understanding of lack of understandings - at this point, it's just arguing for the sake of arguing. Which I take to like many men take to bars and alcohol.

I'll be short. If you say Islam is inherently violent because it represents savage medieval ideals, so it should be just thrown away as such, then let me ask, why not Christianity? 'Because it represents universal values like love and forgiveness'. But Islam also has its peaceful verses. And even the New Testament has its medieval outdated ideas, like the submission of women, or slavery. Even the core teaching that Jesus died on a cross could be dangerous. Because the fact that the Jews handed Jesus over to the Romans, was a good reason/excuse for anti-semitism. Or, if someone hits one of your cheeks, let him hit the other. Is that a practical advice? Do you want to live by that teaching? 'But Christianity could be reformed' . Alright, same has to be done with Islam. In the video I posted, the conclusion was something like Islam is not a religion of peace, but it can be one. Sure, Christianity "has not endured as a religion of conquest, while Islam has", but you are talking as if history has ended and we can live happily ever after. I'm not denying that Islam is more militant than Christianity, I'm just encouraging the peaceful interpretation- that you are denying so much, but if I understood correctly, you don't necessarily want senseless genocide after all (which is a step forward.) The only problem is that muslims are afraid exactly of the western domination, that the western type of society will be forced upon them (maybe they don't see the benefits of it, only the negative aspects? ), and that's why it's easy to radicalize the young men (and even women). In the video, Zeba Khan said that the extremists' primary fear is western domination, and that is the basic difference between moderates and extremists (now I'm not an expert on the subject, I'm just saying what she said). I also agree with the ex-muslim woman, who said that the first step should be to admit the responsibility of muslims, instead of self-victimization and blaming the 'west'.

You have a cat? I like cats. We always had dogs, and in the past 8 years, cats. I grew to prefer cats over dogs. The 1st and 2nd cats died after 3-3 years tho Now this new cat is not so friendly. Though I rarely go home anyway.

 

[Benjamin King]

Seriously?

Surat 26 - please recite it for me.

I'll help you with the relevant parts:

26:2 These are the verses of the clear Book.

26:3 Perhaps, [O Muhammad], you would kill yourself with grief that they will not be believers.

26:4 If We willed, We could send down to them from the sky a sign for which their necks would remain humbled.

26:5 And no revelation comes to them anew from the Most Merciful except that they turn away from it.

26:192 And indeed, the Qur'an is the revelation of the Lord of the worlds.

26:193 The Trustworthy Spirit has brought it down

26:194 Upon your heart, [O Muhammad] - that you may be of the warners -

26:195 In a clear Arabic language.

You must be registered for see links

Out of context?

Requiring guidance?

This is a clear book sent from Allah to make things clear - the legacy of Lot, Moses, Noah, etc will be made clear and defined by Mohammed.

Excuse me, how do those texts exactly prove that Islam forbids terrorism, killing of innocent people, and so on?

You don't need scholars to understand what is plainly written (once you put all the verses in an intelligible order... seriously, what the ****, Allah?)

Mohammed was not a scholar:

26:111 They said, "Should we believe you while you are followed by the lowest [class of people]?"

26:112 He said, "And what is my knowledge of what they used to do?

26:113 Their account is only upon my Lord, if you [could] perceive.

26:114 And I am not one to drive away the believers.

26:115 I am only a clear warner."

The people who followed him were not what one would call the most literate (NOW the Qu'ran makes sense...). It was meant to be understood by the 'blue collar' person.

Prophet Muhammed didn't need to be scholars to understand the details of Islam. He was taught to read by Jibril Peace be upon him.

The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, "I do not know how to read.
The Prophet added, "The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, 'I do not know how to read.' Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read but again I replied, 'I do not know how to read (or what shall I read)?' Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me, and then released me and said, 'Read in the name of your Lord, who has created (all that exists) has created man from a clot. Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous." (96.1, 96.2, 96.3)

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: Allah's Apostle was the most generous of all the people, and he used to reach the peak in generosity in the month of Ramadan when Gabriel met him. Gabriel used to meet him every night of Ramadan to teach him the Qur'an. Allah's Apostle was the most generous person, even more generous than the strong uncontrollable wind (in readiness and haste to do charitable deeds).

Narrated Ibn Shihab: "...Don't you know that once Gabriel came and offered the prayer (Fajr prayer) and Allah's Apostle prayed too, then he prayed again (Zuhr prayer) and so did Allah's Apostle and again he prayed ('Asr prayers and Allah's Apostle did the same; again he prayed (Maghrib-prayer) and so did Allah's Apostle and again prayed ('Isha prayer) and so did Allah's Apostle and (Gabriel) said, 'I was ordered to do so (to demonstrate the prayers prescribed to you)?'"...

It was supernatural event, and how Prophet Muhammed was taught to read.

But - yeah - I should learn more about Islam and pay attention to all of the scholars... but which scholars? The ones who say that beheading and the taking of slaves is permitted?

Or the ones in the west who insist everything Islam has been doing for the past 1400 years has been taken out of context?

*shrug*

Gee... I'm not sure who I should believe, there.

Behead innocent people? The Isis or terrorists are you so called ''scholars''? Please. It's true that Islam preaches to behead people, but only certain type of people:

-People who steal: Get their hands cut off (only depending if the owner of the money forgives them).
-People who rape: Get stoned to death.

It's nothing but your opinion to believe those punishments should/shouldn't be allowed.

Just how much do you know about Islam, there kiddo?

-Born as Muslim
-Studied Islam for 17 years
-Studied Islam in the most Islamic country and Islamic culture: Saudi Arabia
-Raised by Muslims

That's how much I know about Islam. Now, lets see how much you know about Islam:

-You're not a Muslim
-Your info about Islam comes from media or non-Muslim people
-You have never lived in Islamic country

And you question about who knows more about Islam? Okay, pal.

 

[Aim64C]

Excuse me, how do those texts exactly prove that Islam forbids terrorism, killing of innocent people, and so on?

You're confused.

Those texts illustrate what the Qu'ran is.

Prophet Muhammed didn't need to be scholars to understand the details of Islam. He was taught to read by Jibril Peace be upon him.

This is where you failed to understand my point.

Islam was never about scholarly pursuits. It was about a warlord inciting his followers to subvert other cultures. It was meant to appeal to those who are not of higher education.

Indeed, Surat 9 heavily implies that the successful business owners and productive members of society often mocked Mohammed or simply gave him money to 'go away' without really believing his cause.

It was supernatural event, and how Prophet Muhammed was taught to read.

That is what Muslims believe.

The reality is that the Koran is a composite of scripture widely available at the time. The Hadith are more genuine accounts of a man - but the name "Mohammed," "Islam," "Muslim," etc do not appear until after 691 - at which point the name of the man and religion begin appearing everywhere.

Which means the Qu'ran is nothing more than an attempt to redact prevalent teachings into a religion centered around the man who began the Arab conquest. This was at the order of Abd al-Malik.

Behead innocent people? The Isis or terrorists are you so called ''scholars''? Please. It's true that Islam preaches to behead people, but only certain type of people:

-People who steal: Get their hands cut off (only depending if the owner of the money forgives them).
-People who rape: Get stoned to death.

It's nothing but your opinion to believe those punishments should/shouldn't be allowed.

Really, now?

I take it you've memorized the Qu'ran, yes?

I have yet to do so, so I will consult my handy copy on my phone:

5:33 Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

5:34 except for those who return [repenting] before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Perhaps "beheading" is not necessarily a prescribed punishment - but it certainly falls under the blanket command of "kill."



9:5 And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

What is it about this command to kill non-believers who do not recognize the dominance of Islam that you fail to understand?

2:190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.

Spoiler

Sounds peaceful...

2:191 And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al-Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

Spoiler

... Kill where you overtake them? How does that happen to people who do not transgress?

2:192 And if they ease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

Spoiler

hmm... there must be some kind of vast conspiracy against this incredibly peaceful guy who is just innocently preaching the word of God... the Jews are after him, the Christians are after him, the Persians are after him... -everyone- is attacking this guy.

-Born as Muslim
-Studied Islam for 17 years
-Studied Islam in the most Islamic country and Islamic culture: Saudi Arabia
-Raised by Muslims

Ah, so you realize, then, that you are too valuable to simply detonate yourself. Allah has greater things in store for you.

That's how much I know about Islam. Now, lets see how much you know about Islam:

-You're not a Muslim
-Your info about Islam comes from media or non-Muslim people
-You have never lived in Islamic country

Ah, and Mohammed was a merchant who never led an army.

If you are so confident in your understanding - meet me as you would an equal and let the fruit of jihad speak for itself.

And you question about who knows more about Islam? Okay, pal.

2:118 Those who do not know say, "Why does Allah not speak to us or there come to us a sign?" Thus spoke those before them like their words. Their hearts resemble each other. We have shown clearly the signs to a people who are certain [in faith].

9:127 And whenever a surah is revealed, they look at each other, [saying], "Does anyone see you?" and then they dismiss themselves. Allah has dismissed their hearts because they are people who do not understand.

It was from a kindred soul to my own, following its corruption, that Islam spawned. Surat 9:128.

The Qu'ran possesses, very much, a spiritual element to it. Indeed, it is a list of truths - the same truths that were used to persuade both Adam and Eve. Thus, one such as myself knows what the Qu'ran will contain simply by virtue. A composite, it may be; but a purposed composite, it is.

But there are truths it does not contain. There are realities it leaves in shadow. To those lost in the darkness, it appears to be a light - but it is in service to the fallen it inducts them - or in the quest for power it rewards them.

 

[Avani]

I didn't read the rest of the post since you just took out a verse out of context. Regardless of whether you believe there is one or not, there is a known context for this one. Let's take a look at the verses surrounding it:



And here's an article that talks about this verse:

You must be registered for see links

Is that Dr Zakir Naik, the well known proselytizer of Islam? Are we suppose to take everything he says as the whole truth? That he is not hiding anything by cherry picking or or by the way of omission? For I know he plays the same game you are blaming others of.

I have come across pages where Muslim scholars ( muftis etc) didn't agree with him on many points but would rather ignore that part since he is doing good work in "spreading the word " and the image.
Fatawa questing his knowledge:

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

For myself I tried to look up the verses in Bhagvad Geeta and all the numbers were wrong. Why would you quote a book and still quote the numbers of page and of Sloka wrong? I had to read a lot before finally finding the verse only to notice that he had taken them out of context suit his purpose. I didn't bother to check other books he quoted after that.

Comments clearly show people support him because they deem he succeeds in getting converts .




Back to the quote:

I don't really care about actual religious stuff but the incident you quoted has a lot more implications- the whole incident of that particular war and how and who broke the treaty even that's argued. The book was

You must be registered for see links

and only one version was finalized. Muslims claim it's the entire story while non Muslim sources claim that certain verses were removed.

Point is when there are this many versions the whole argument about what is actually written in Quran or why is of no one's concern but those who believe in it and want to consult it.

That is the last verse that talks about violence, so if anything, this should be crucial, right? Now this verse no way says that go to faraway countries and blow yourself up, right?

Were the bombs invented that far back as to even even suggest that idea?

However, this conversation is entering a phase I'd rather avoid. Simply because I'm not muslim, so I don't want to talk in their name. I don't want to be a self appointed representative, and make the wrong impression u.u

Well you are acting as one. You are taking a side..

But a system is made by the people, therefore it can be changed be the people.

100% agreed. Only problem is that one some extremists claim their system to have come from supernatural power which cannot be changed with time.

Anyone who tries to modernize can easily be declared as Non muslim or Kafir or things along those lines. While they claim they are just stating a fact as the word is used for nonbelievers the whole background makes it a pretty racist and discriminatory word. After all the word negro itself is just another word for black isn't it?

On top of it the idea of Jihad against such people and the definition of Dar ul Harb is too easy to misuse one can practically declare any country which is not under sharia law as Dar ul harb. Deoband School of India cancelled a fatawa against India as dar ul harb a few years ago ( it was issued against the British when they occupied India) and some Pakistani forums called them sell-outs for that.

I'm just encouraging the peaceful interpretation- that you are denying so much, but if I understood correctly, you don't necessarily want senseless genocide after all (which is a step forward.)

Encouraging the peaceful interpretation and moving on, is the key. I agree on that.

The only problem is that muslims are afraid exactly of the western domination, that the western type of society will be forced upon them (maybe they don't see the benefits of it, only the negative aspects? ), and that's why it's easy to radicalize the young men (and even women).

But it's the same for the other side- when they tell others to use sharia law aren't they imposing their type of society and culture? I don't mean to offend anyone but the way Islam is defined by extremists and some conservatives it's imperialistic in nature. In fact, I noticed that they do not support nationalism even in Muslim nations as it is a hindrance in turning into a single empire.

In the video, Zeba Khan said that the extremists' primary fear is western domination, and that is the basic difference between moderates and extremists

In the end it's like clash of civilizations and cultures. Both want theirs to prevail on others for they consider they are following the best one.

id that the first step should be to admit the responsibility of muslims, instead of self-victimization and blaming the 'west'.

Yea.... it's kind of ironic when they object USA and allies interfering on grounds of humanity, democracy etc but they have been doing the same interfering in others business in the name of religious brotherhood.

Arguments like this are what makes an simple manga like Naruto so relevant...

 

[Scooby Doo]

Were the bombs invented that far back as to even even suggest that idea?

I think you're perfectly aware that was not the main point u.u

Well you are acting as one. You are taking a side..

I didn't say I don't take sides. I don't support terrorists, but I don't think Islam is terror, either. I gave my reasons above u.u

And I'm afraid my advocation may be contraproductive. I'm not a muslim, so I can't tell how exactly they think: I'd like to make it clear that my intention was simply to show why me- as an outsider- can accept the reasoning of moderate muslims.

100% agreed. Only problem is that one some extremists claim their system to have come from supernatural power which cannot be changed with time.

Moderate muslims also say that Islam comes from the same "supernatural power" yet they interpret it the peaceful way. Christians also said that their teachings are from divine source, the rulers ruled by divine right, yet it could be changed. If someone says that Islam is nothing like Christianity, because it is also a political system given by god- then we are back to the argument that a system can be changed by the people. "But god's word can't be altered". And what is the exact word of god? "The Quran" And what's in the Quran? "Fight the disbelievers" Yeah that's one of the things. "But it overwrites the peaceful ones"- And we are back to the same arguments that I've already addressed above.

Anyone who tries to modernize can easily be declared as Non muslim or Kafir or things along those lines. While they claim they are just stating a fact as the word is used for nonbelievers the whole background makes it a pretty racist and discriminatory word. After all the word negro itself is just another word for black isn't it?

On top of it the idea of Jihad against such people and the definition of Dar ul Harb is too easy to misuse one can practically declare any country which is not under sharia law as Dar ul harb. Deoband School of India cancelled a fatawa against India as dar ul harb a few years ago ( it was issued against the British when they occupied India) and some Pakistani forums called them were sell outs.

Those concepts are not in the Quran itself, though, furthermore, there are other 'houses' (or abides) as well (liek House of Truce).

Encouraging the peaceful interpretation and moving on is the key. I agree on that.



But it's the same for the other side- when they tell others to use sharia law aren't they imposing their type os society and culture? I don't mean to offend anyone and the way Islam is defined by extremists and some conservatives it's imperialistic in nature. In fact I noticed that they do not support nationalism even in Muslim nations as it is a hindrance in turning into a single empire.

And that's the thing. The ideology of being superior and our culture should be spread, is not unique to Islam. It's also present in Judaism (the idea of 'chosen nation'), and hence in Christianity, and can be traced until modern imperialism.

In the end it's like clash of civilizations and cultures. Both want theirs to prevail on others for they consider they are following the best one. Yea.... it's kind of ironic when they object USA and allies interfering on grounds of humanity, democracy etc but they have been doing the same interfering in others business in the name of religious brotherhood.

Arguments like this are what makes an simple manga like Naruto so relevant...

Yes but I don't think that in understanding another culture the best approach is to call it outright bullcrap. That goes for both sides. Cultures are in interaction, and can learn from each other. (Let's not forget the importance of Arabs in the European renessaince- that basically led to reform Christianity and feudalism. Though some people will deny that importance). Muslims should recognize the benefits of democracy and the importance of human rights (well many of them do- they key is education. Obviously, illiterate and poor people are easier to radicalize- however radicalism spreading fast in youths as well [but that's not unique to muslims]. )
But before we judge a culture, we should focus on our one as well. I was watching an anti-islamic video: it showed the front of a newspaperthat muslims in UK demand sharia law. Above the headlines, was an article about a 16 yrs old [British] girl who died of drinking too much vodka at a party. Is that good? Call me an idiot or whatever, but I don't think that's much better than cutting the hand of thiefs (though the two phenomena are different in nature, so maybe the comparing is not correct- but I'm just talking about aspects that could be dealt with: each culture has its own issues). I can mostly talk about my country though. We were occupied by the ottomans for centuries- yet I don't go blame the muslims for our current situation. Here, 1/3 of the population live in poverty. 1/4 of the households have problems paying bills. Hundreds of thousands of people go to work abroad because they can't find jobs. We don't have much immigrants, but we do have about gypsies -adding up to 1/10 of the population (btw they are supposed to originate from India)- who are overrepresented in criminal statistics (though that goes for minorities in general), and they give birth to 4-8 children, while Hungarians 1-2. In a few generations they may be the majority. 80% of our GDP goes for state debt. (And we can't complain, we are in top 60 countries when it comes to GDP). So is Islam the biggest threat? I don't think so. Of course ISIS and terrorists should be dealt with, but you know, we pay taxes to maintain governments, armies, NATO...stuff like that. But first of all we should mind our own freaking business instead of 'exporting democracy' to other countries because it's the best system ever (which is true regardless).

 

[Avani]

I think you're perfectly aware that was not the main point u.u

I merely pointed out that somethings do not have yes or no answer.

I didn't say I don't take sides. I don't support terrorists, but I don't think Islam is terror, either. I gave my reasons above u.u

I am not even going there. I have seen a lot of different faces of it in Indian history. So I know there are many sides.

And I'm afraid my advocation may be contraproductive. I'm not a muslim, so I can't tell how exactly they think: I'd like to make it clear that my intention was simply to show why me- as an outsider- can accept the reasoning of moderate muslims.

I never question that. I think their way is the one which will get a solution for all parties to live in peace. Don't confuse me with the other guy you are having a walli war with. I just don't think much of denying any responsibility by the other party when it's clear both act in the same way.

Moderate muslims also say that Islam comes from the same "supernatural power" yet they interpret it the peaceful way. Christians also said that their teachings are from divine source, the rulers ruled by divine right, yet it could be changed. If someone says that Islam is nothing like Christianity, because it is also a political system given by god- then we are back to the argument that a system can be changed by the people. "But god's word can't be altered". And what is the exact word of god? "The Quran" And what's in the Quran? "Fight the disbelievers" Yeah that's one of the things. "But it overwrites the peaceful ones"- And we are back to the same arguments that I've already addressed above.

I am aware. We had seen some of the worst of them too. Portuguese were here longer than British. Did I even question this part?

Those concepts are not in the Quran itself, though, furthermore, there are other 'houses' (or abides) as well (liek House of Truce).

The concept is accepted and that's what matters in the end. I am aware of Dar ul Aman too.

And that's the thing. The ideology of being superior and our culture should be spread, is not unique to Islam. It's also present in Judaism (the idea of 'chosen nation'), and hence in Christianity, and can be traced until modern imperialism.

Why are you telling me things which I said myself?

Yes but I don't think that in understanding another culture the best approach is to call it outright bullcrap. That goes for both sides.

Yeah that derails the dialogue even before it starts.

Cultures are in interaction, and can learn from each other. (Let's not forget the importance of Arabs in the European renessaince- that basically led to reform Christianity and feudalism. Though some people will deny that importance). Muslims should recognize the benefits of democracy and the importance of human rights (well many of them do- they key is education. Obviously, illiterate and poor people are easier to radicalize- however radicalism spreading fast in youths as well [but that's not unique to muslims]. )

I just want everyone to leave other nations alone if they are not causing problem for others and are able to provide basic human rights to their citizens.

But before we judge a culture, we should focus on our one as well. I was watching an anti-islamic video: it showed the front of a newspaperthat muslims in UK demand sharia law. Above the headlines, was an article about a 16 yrs old [British] girl who died of drinking too much vodka at a party. Is that good? Call me an idiot or whatever, but I don't think that's much better than cutting the hand of thiefs (though the two phenomena are different in nature, so maybe the comparing is not correct- but I'm just talking about aspects that could be dealt with: each culture has its own issues). I can mostly talk about my country though. We were occupied by the ottomans for centuries- yet I don't go blame the muslims for our current situation. Here, 1/3 of the population live in poverty. 1/4 of the households have problems paying bills. Hundreds of thousands of people go to work abroad because they can't find jobs.

I don't even watch such things all that much. And yea. Every culture has issues, that's why we should address our own problems too instead of blaming only the rest of the world.

We don't have much immigrants, but we do have about gypsies -adding up to 1/10 of the population (btw they are supposed to originate from India)- who are overrepresented in criminal statistics (though that goes for minorities in general), and they give birth to 4-8 children, while Hungarians 1-2.

Why would you even bring them up.. it's counter productive to what you were trying to establish...


I know about the reputation of gypsies but thousand years ago India was yet more flourishing country than any European one for a population to move there for better living.

If anything we still have a similar tribe here- Banjara and Dom as they are called locally. British promptly made a list of communities whom they classed as criminal tribes and added them to it in 1871(repealed in 1952).

After this many generation the ones you have don't even have that much Indian blood in them as they mixed from many other European countries. By the accounts I hear they probably attracted the most backward, deprived homeless, wandering people from all of the nations they lived in as they grew in number.

In a few generations they may be the majority. 80% of our GDP goes for state debt. (And we can't complain, we are in top 60 countries when it comes to GDP). So is Islam the biggest threat?

I didn't say Islam the reiligion is the biggest threat. But did you just compare the threat from armed extremists of that back ground with a groups of people which are product of racist discrimination of European nation and don't really have any personal political agenda as a community to impose a new social order on you in which you will turn into a second class citizen?

The Romani people, also referred to depending on the sub-group as Roma, Sintior Sindhi, Kale, or Romani , are an Indo-Aryan ethnic group, who live primarily in Europe. They originated in the region of northwestern India and now Pakistan,[1][2][3] and left sometime between the 6th and 11th century, brought by Muslims to Europe as slaves......

... Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi and these soldiers were defeated, they were moved west with their families into the Byzantine Empire between AD 1000 and 1030.[8]

Genetic evidence connects the Romani people and the Jat people, the descendants of groups which emigrated from South Asia towards Central Asia during the medieval period.

You must be registered for see links

The name Hindu Kush in Farsi/Parsi literally means 'Kills the Hindu', a reminder of the days when Indian slaves from the Indian subcontinent (whom their enslavers referred to as Hindus[6]) died in the harsh weather typical of the Afghan mountains while being transported to Central Asia.[....

..."The name Hindu Kush first appears in 1333 AD in the writings of Ibn Battutah, the medieval Berber traveller, who said the name meant 'Hindu Killer', a meaning still given by Afghan mountain dwellers who are traditional enemies of Indian plainsmen (i.e. Hindus)."

You must be registered for see links

In the least Ibn Battutah pointed out what was going on their with that wording.

If there is any connection with India they became slaves and were sold and that's how they ended up there...

As I said bringing them up was counter productive...Anyway..

I doubt you will lose majority. Chances of having more mixed people are higher though I can understand if it scares you. You are worried because they are 10%... we have 25% Muslims you know.. You shouldn't have brought this up..Luckily we are not that paranoid here.

don't think so. Of course ISIS and terrorists should be dealt with, but you know, we pay taxes to maintain governments, armies, NATO...stuff like that. But first of all we should mind our own freaking business instead of 'exporting democracy' to other countries because it's the best system ever (which is true regardless).

It's only the best as it gives everyone at least some chance to get in power more or less and thus reduces that conflict to an extent, and because you can kick out an incompetent leader out of power at one point without having to shoot them.