Is Islam peaceful? [Archive] - SpursTalk.com Forums

gtownspur

07-08-2006, 05:54 PM

Islam: the Facade and the Facts
By Abdullah Al Araby
Jump to: Change of Identity Change of Vocabulary Change of Strategy
Stage of Weakness Mohammed in Mecca The Facts

The Facade
The "Islam" that Muslim activists introduce to the West these days is completely different from the Islam we knew and experienced in the Middle East. This is a new edition - revised, modified, expanded and abridged - of the real Islam. A major facelift operation has been taking place here.

To their credit, I must acknowledge that the international Islamization movement, in recent years, has grown much in both intelligence and sophistication. They lacked power, so they decided to be smart. Since they could no longer use the sword to conquer the world, as they once did, they decided to use more cunning methods, taking advantage of democracy in the West.

The following are some of the methods Muslim activists are now adopting:

Change of Identity
Muslim activists in the West avoid referring to teachings that may offend the Western citizen, such as the Islamic code of punishment.

They stress that they believe in Moses and Jesus. They refrain from calling Jews and Christians "infidels", nor would they call them "Zionists" or "Crusaders".

The last thing they want to do is to shock people. They once had a Muslim host on their TV. program with a Christian name, "Paul"; names like Mohammed, Mustafa and Omar were too strong to swallow they thought. They use the term "Sunday School" in place of "Friday Class", and they end their speeches with the Christian expression "may God bless you".

They boast about being Americans, and have the American flag cover the background of their program set. This is the same flag Muslims burn in their daily rituals in Islamic countries, calling America "The great Satan".

top

Change of Vocabulary
Instead of living in isolation from society, they are using now a completely new terminology. Words like love, grace... are now part of their vocabulary. Theological Christian terms such as : Salvation, Justification and Sanctification are now part of their teachings.

They change Quranic translations to hide some of Islam's harsh teachings.

An example is the new French translation of the Quran which has caused tremendous furor among Muslim fundamentalists. The translation attempted to please Jews by modifying some verses of the Quran that condemned Jews. An example is a verse that used to read "The people of Israel, after sowing corruption twice on earth for the purpose of dominating other people, will push themselves up into a position of extreme power before being punished by God."

The new translation reads just the opposite: "The people of Israel will be twice destroyed as an innocent victim, and God will reward them by elevating them to great heights."

top

Change of Strategy
Their new strategy lies in trying to be accepted, included and involved in all activities; religious, social and political.

They are now becoming active in partisan functions in order to have a say in parties platforms. They conduct letter compaigns to members of Congress to influence legislation. They run for public offices in hope of reaching a position of authority. They make full use of their voting power to get concessions in their favor. They try to be represented on educational programs to go in line with their beliefs.

The stage of weakness and the stage of Jihad (Holy War)

It seems that these new tactics we discussed are not without precedent in Islamic history. Mohammed Hassanein Heikal, the noted Egyptian author, refers to this concept in his book "Autumn Furor". He states:

"So the element of Jihad emerged in the ideology of Abul Aala Almaudoody. He went on to differentiate between two separate stages a Muslim community goes through:

"The stage of weakness - In it a Muslim community is unable to take charge of its own destiny. In this case - according to his thinking - they must withdraw for the purpose of preparing themselves to be capable of executing the second stage.

"The second stage is the Jihad stage, and it will come when the Muslim community has completed its prepardness and is ready to come out of its isolation to take charge, through Jihad.

"In this, Abul Aala Almaudoody was making a comparison between the two stages of weakness and Jihad on the one hand, and on the other hand, Mohammed's struggle in Mecca then in Medina."

Mohammed in Mecca and Mohammed in Medina

Historians agree that there is a big difference between Mohammed's personality in Mecca and his personality after his migration to Medina.

In Mecca Mohammed was weak, struggling to be accepted, often mocked at and ridiculed. He tried to appeal to the people of Mecca by being compassionate and loving. His teachings condemned violence, injustice, neglect of the poor. However, after he moved to Medina and his followers grew in strength and number, he became a relentless warrior, intent on spreading his religion by the sword.

This change in Mohammed's personality becomes apparent by comparing the Meccan and the Medinan surahs. The following are some examples:

In surah 73:10 God tells Mohammed to be patient with his opponents "Be patient with what they say, and part from them courteously." While in surah 2:191 God orders him to kill his opponents "Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out..."

In surah 2:256 God tells Mohammed not to impose Islam by force "There is no compulsion in religion." While in verse 193 God tells him to kill whoever rejects Islam "Fight (kill) them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's."

In surah 29:46 God tells Mohammed to speak nicely to people of the Book (Christians and Jews) "Argue with people of the Book, other then evil doers, only by means of what are better! and say, we believe in what has been sent down to us and sent down to you. Our God is the same as your God, and we are surrendered to him." While in surah 9:29 God tells him to fight the people of the Book, "Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day...and fight People of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior."

To justify this sudden change in the Quran's mood from peaceful to militant, conciliatory to confrontational, Mohammed claimed that it was God who told him so. It was God who abrogated the peaceful verses and replaced them by harsh ones.

However the truth of the matter, as Almaudoody puts it, is that Mohammed became strong enough to move from the stage of weakness to the stage of Jihad.

Today, in the West, we are witnessing the Islamic stage of weakness, but lets not be fooled, the stage of Jihad is coming sooner or later. This meek little lamb will turn out to be a ravening wolf, the sweet melodious "Baa Baa" will change to a thunderous roar.

top

The Facts
The following are some real teachings of Islam:

Men are superior to women (surah 2:228).

Women have half the rights of men: in court witness (surah 2:282) and in inheritance
(surah 4:11).

A man may punish his wife by beating her (surah 4:34).

A man may marry up to four wives at the same time (surah 4:3).

A wife is a sex object for her husband (surah 2:223).

Muslims must fight until their opponents submit to Islam (surah 9:29).

A Muslim must not take a Jew or a a Christian for a friend (surah 5:51).

A Muslim apostate must be killed (surah 9:12).

Stealing is punished by the amputation of the hands (surah 5:38).

Adultery is punished by public flogging (surah 24:2).

Resisting Islam is punished by death, crucifixion or the cutting off of the hands and feet
(surah 5:33).

Fate decides everyone's eternal destination (surah 17:13).

Every Muslim will pass through Hell (surah 19:71).

Heaven in Islam is the place where a Muslim will be reclining, eating meats and delicious fruits, drinking exquisite wines, and engaging in sex with virgins (surah 55:54- 56) &
(surah 52:17,19).

ChumpDumper

07-08-2006, 06:05 PM

Ah the "all Muslims are bad" angle surfaces yet again.

So why are we helping them?

gtownspur

07-08-2006, 06:07 PM

I think the article critiqued the religion and not the arab race.

boutons_

07-08-2006, 06:52 PM

Christian Germany and Balkans started WWI

Christian Germany/Austria started WWII, and Christian Germany, Austria, Poland, France, etc exterminated the Jews.

Christian USA invaded Viet Nam, which was no threat to USA

Christian USA invaded Iraq, which was no threat to USA

Is Christianity a peaceful religion?

gtownspur

07-08-2006, 07:11 PM

E20

07-08-2006, 07:48 PM

Akeeeeew..........if you think Christianity hasn't conquered by the sword then...............

The only major religon I have heard that hasn't conquered by the sword is Judasim.

Men are superior to women (surah 2:228).

Women have half the rights of men: in court witness (surah 2:282) and in inheritance
(surah 4:11).

Surah 3:195:
"Their Lord responded to them: "I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you male or female, you are equal to one another"

Muslims must fight until their opponents submit to Islam (surah 9:29).

Resisting Islam is punished by death, crucifixion or the cutting off of the hands and feet
(surah 5:33).

2:256“There is no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And God hears and knows all things.”

I can find more............BTW, try posting the real lines..................

NorCal510

07-08-2006, 08:10 PM

islam is as peaceful as oakland

gtownspur

07-08-2006, 08:58 PM

"Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half that of a man?" The women said, "yes," He said, "This is because of the deficiency of the woman's mind. " 3:826

gtownspur

07-08-2006, 09:01 PM

Btw, christ never commanded that christianity be spread through the sword. Christianity was spread through evangelization.

THe difference between cHRISTIANITY an Islam is that if a christian kills muslims in the name of JEsus, he is in violation of the New Testament and God's law.

But if a muslim kills a christian for the sake of Allah, The Prophet mohammed through his writ, assures his place in heaven.

ChumpDumper

07-08-2006, 09:27 PM

So why are we helping them?

They follow the religion you are condemning.

E20

07-08-2006, 09:31 PM

"Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half that of a man?" The women said, "yes," He said, "This is because of the deficiency of the woman's mind. " 3:826
That's Hadith.............Anything in the Quarn > Hadith, in Islam.

Btw, christ never commanded that christianity be spread through the sword. Christianity was spread through evangelization.
Btw, christ never commanded that christianity be spread through the sword. Christianity was spread through evangelization.

THe difference between cHRISTIANITY an Islam is that if a christian kills muslims in the name of JEsus, he is in violation of the New Testament and God's law.

But if a muslim kills a christian for the sake of Allah, The Prophet mohammed through his writ, assures his place in heaven

For Christianity see:

The Crusades
Imperilization (The Americas, Africa, Asia, Middle East)
Manifest Destiny(The Americas)

Basically, Christians have killed in the name of Christ throughout history and Muslims have killed in the name of Allah throughout history. That isn't too hard to get..........
http://www.submission.org/christians/call-jews.html
^^^ This basically gives verses from the Quran regarding Jews and Christians..............

THe difference between cHRISTIANITY an Islam is that if a christian kills muslims in the name of JEsus, he is in violation of the New Testament and God's law.

But if a muslim kills a christian for the sake of Allah, The Prophet mohammed through his writ, assures his place in heaven.
I'm pretty sure Christianity doesn't condone the killing of others for conversion. I'm assuming since there are various lines in the Quran saying there is no compulsion in religon and no one is allowed to kill no what matter what, your statement is false. Also, I'm thinking you got that part mixed up. I'm pretty sure you meant to say that a martyr fighting in the name of Allah will be assured to heaven. You can only be a martyr in Islam if you wage Jihad - Holy War - A Muslim is being physically attacked due to their religon or country - and die while in battle.

valluco

07-08-2006, 09:47 PM

So why are we helping them?

They follow the religion you are condemning.
maybe, we help them because of their oil? maybe?

exstatic

07-08-2006, 09:49 PM

The only peaceful major world religion is Buddhism, and I would argue that it's not a religion at all, since there is no worship of the divine, but rather the dissemination of the way to reach a state of enlightenment that can be attained by any man. Buddha is not God, and doesn't claim to be.

The Jewish people, while they don't use violence to convert, have used it to achieve their ends from Joshua to today. They are by no means pacifists. The violence of Islam and Christianity are well documented and don't need to be repeated so much as acknowledged.

gtownspur

07-08-2006, 11:14 PM

That's Hadith.............Anything in the Quarn > Hadith, in Islam.

For Christianity see:

The Crusades
Imperilization (The Americas, Africa, Asia, Middle East)
Manifest Destiny(The Americas)

Basically, Christians have killed in the name of Christ throughout history and Muslims have killed in the name of Allah throughout history. That isn't too hard to get..........
http://www.submission.org/christians/call-jews.html
^^^ This basically gives verses from the Quran regarding Jews and Christians..............

I'm pretty sure Christianity doesn't condone the killing of others for conversion. I'm assuming since there are various lines in the Quran saying there is no compulsion in religon and no one is allowed to kill no what matter what, your statement is false. Also, I'm thinking you got that part mixed up. I'm pretty sure you meant to say that a martyr fighting in the name of Allah will be assured to heaven. You can only be a martyr in Islam if you wage Jihad - Holy War - A Muslim is being physically attacked due to their religon or country - and die while in battle.

YOu completely missed the point.

THe crusades were are condemned by the New Testament.

THe Islamic Jihads that were waged to spread the religion were sanctioned by the Medina verses of the Quran.

Whatever peacefull verses you find in the earlier MEccan verses in the Quran, they are nullified by the Newer Medina Verses in that same Quran.

If you were to tell an honest Muslim Scholar in private that Jihad is only to be waged in defense and not in offense, he'd laugh in your face. The whole Quran is about the waging of war and pillaging of war.

I will post you an article on this doctrine of abrogation.

gtownspur

07-08-2006, 11:19 PM

The Quran's Doctrine of Abrogation
Prepared by Abdullah Al Araby
In an attempt to polish Islam's image, Muslim activists usually quote verses from the Quran that were written in the early days of the Islamic movement while Mohammed lived in Mecca. Those passages make Islam appear loving and harmless because they call for love, peace and patience. Such is a deception. The activists fail to tell gullible people that such verses, though still in the Quran, were nullified, abrogated, rendered void by later passages that incite killing, decapitations, maiming, terrorism and religious intolerance. The latter verses were penned while Mohammed’s headquarters was based in Medina.

When speaking with people of Christianized/Western societies, Muslim activists deliberately hide a major Islamic doctrine called "al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh" (the Abrogator and the Abrogated). This simply means that in situations wherein verses contradict one another, the early verses are overridden by the latter verses. The chronological timing in which a verse was written determines its authority to establish policies within Islam. Non-Muslims cannot afford to be ignorant about the full implications of the Abrogator and the Abrogated Doctrine (al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh). When Islamic spokesmen say that Islam is a religion of peace and that the Quran does not support such things as human rights infractions, gender bias and terrorism, they are lying. This means that the Western politicians and liberal journalists, who continually spout that Islam is a noble religion of peace, are in reality propagating a deception that they have been deceived into parroting.

This presents problems for naïve people who are not familiar with Islam and the Quran. They don’t know that the surahs/chapters of the Quran are not arranged in chorological order in regard to the timing in which they were written. Therefore an activist who is out to deceive them can turn to various places throughout the Quran and read verses that sound peaceful, tolerant, reasonable and loving. The impression is that the entire Quran promotes peace, love, equality and tolerance for all. That is far from the truth. Most Muslims fully understand that the few Quranic verses that seemingly promote equality, peace and justice are more often than not overridden/ nullified by later verses that validate such things as terrorism and legalistic restrictions on routine human and women’s rights.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ABROGATOR AND THE ABROGATED IN THE QURAN (Al Nasikh Wal Mansoukh)
This doctrine is based on two verses that Allah allegedly instructed Mohammed to put into the Quran.

"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" Surah 2: 106

"When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not." Surah 16:101

The documentation for the information that I am offering in this piece is found in one of Islam's classical reference books in the Arabic language. It is titled "al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh" (The Abrogator and the Abrogated) and was authored by the revered Muslim scholar Abil-Kasim Hibat-Allah Ibn-Salama Abi-Nasr. The book goes through every Surah (chapter) in the Quran and cites in great detail every verse that was cancelled-out/overridden by particular verses that were written later. The author noted that out of 114 Surahs (chapters) of the Quran, there are only 43 Surahs that were not affected by this concept. The implications are very revealing. It means that those who would be inclined to accept the Quran as reliable can take only 43 chapters of the Quran at face value. The majority of its chapters cannot be taken at face value. The cancelled verses are mixed in with the authoritative verses and only schooled Islamist know which is which.

The following are English translation excerpts from the reference book’s original Arabic

THREE KINDS OF ABROGATION:
1) Verses in which both the wording and application were abrogated/nullified.

There is an example of this found in a narration by Ans Ibn Abdel Malik. He said that during the life of Mohammed, they used to read a Surah that was equal in size to that of Surah 9 (the repentance). He further stated that he only remembered one verse from that Surah/chapter. - “If the son of Adam has two valleys of gold he would covet to have a third one, if he has three he would covet to have a fourth one. Nothing would fill the belly of the son of Adam except dirt, and Allah would accept the repentance of those who repent.”

Another example is the narration of Ibn Abdullah Ibn Massoud. He said that Mohammed recited a verse for him that he memorized and wrote in his Quran. When he checked his Quran the following day, he discovered that the verse had disappeared. Mohammed explained what had happened to ibn Massoud. He told him that the verse had been lifted during the previous day.

2) Verses in which the wording was abrogated (nullified) but the application was not.

These are verses wherein the wording was nullified, but the inferences/possible applications of those words remained intact.

There is an example of this form in a narration about Omar Ibn Al Khattab. He said, “If I didn’t hate that people would say we added to the Quran which was not part of it, I would have insisted in including the verse of stoning. By God we have recited it by the Apostle of God.”

3) Verses in which the application was abrogated (nullified), but the wording was not.

These are verses wherein the wording remained the same, but the authority to consider such in the formation of Islamic polices were nullified

There are sixty-three Surahs/chapters in the Quran that mention such things as praying in the direction of Jerusalem, regulations about fasting and the forgiveness that is available to polytheists

FOUR DEGREES OF ABROGATION
1. Surahs that were not influenced by applications of the doctrine of the Abrogator and the Abrogated. (43 Surahs)

Surahs 1, 12, 36, 49, 55, 57, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 84, 85, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107,109, 108, 110, 112, 113, and 114

2. Surahs that maintained the authority of the Abrogator, but their original wording was not abrogated/nullified.(6 Surahs)

Surahs 48, 59, 63, 64, 65, and 87

3. Surahs that had their wording abrogated/nullified, but maintained their authority for applications. (40 Surahs)

Surahs 6, 7 10, 11, 13, 15 16 17, 18, 20, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 53, 54, 60, 68, 70, 74, 75, 76, 77, 86, 80, 88, and 109

4. Surahs that have had both their authority for applications and their wording abrogated. (24 Surahs)

Surahs 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 33, 34, 40, 42, 51, 52, 56, 58, 73, 103, and 108

THE VERSE OF THE SWORD
The verse that Abrogated (nullified) the Peace Verses.

An example of the abrogation: There are 124 versus that call for tolerance and patience that have been cancelled and replaced by one, single verse. This verse is called the verse of the sword:

"But when the forbidden months are past, 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)....." Surah 9:5

Verses that support the verse of the Sword

1) “Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of believers” (Surah 9:14).

2) “O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque” (Surah 9:28).

3) “The Jews call ‘Uzayr a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate the Unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!” (Surah 9:30).

4) “O Prophet! Strive hard against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell – an evil refuge indeed” (Surah 9:73).

5) “O ye who believe! Fight the Unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him” (Surah 9:123).

Some of the verses abrogated by the verse of the Sword:

1) “Those who believe (in the Qua’an), and the Christians and the Sabians – any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve” (Surah 2:62).

2) “Quite a number of the People of the Book wish they could turn you (people) back to infidelity after ye have believed, from selfish envy, after the Truth hath become manifest unto them: but forgive and overlook, till Allah accomplish his purpose” (Surah 2:109).

3) “But because of their breach of their Covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the Message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them – barring a few – ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind” (Surah 5:13).

4) “Leave alone those who take their religion to be mere play and amusement, and are deceived by the life of this world. But proclaim (to them) this (truth): that every soul delivers itself to ruin by its own acts: it will find for itself no protector or intercessor except Allah: if it offered every ransom, (or reparation), none will be accepted: such is (the end of) those who deliver themselves to ruin by their own acts: they will have for drink (only) boiling water, and for punishment, one most grievous: for they persisted in rejecting Allah” (Surah 6:70).

5) “But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah” (Surah 8:61)

6) “And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury); but say, ‘We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; our God and your God is One; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)” (Surah 29:46).

7) “And remember We took a covenant from the Children of Israel (to this effect): worship none but Allah” (Surah 2:83).

8) “Say: Will ye dispute with us about Allah, seeing that He is our Lord and your Lord; that we are responsible for our doings and ye for yours; and that we are sincere (in our faith) in Him?” (Surah 2:139)

9) “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors” (Surah 2:190)

10) “But fight them at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there” (Surah 2:191)

11) “But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful” (Surah 2:192).

12) “But there is no compulsion in religion” (Surah 2:256).

13) “So if they dispute with thee, say: ‘I have submitted my whole self to Allah and so have those who follow me,’ And say to the People of the Book and so to those who are unlearned: ‘do ye (also) submit yourself? If they do, they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, thy duty is to convey the Message” (Surah 3:20).

14) “Let not the Believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers; if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourself from them” (Surah 3:28).

15) “Those men – Allah knows what is in their hearts; so keep clear of them, but admonish them, and speak to them a word to reach their souls” (Surah 4:63) .

16) “He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah: but if any turn away, we have not sent thee to watch over their (evil deeds)” (Surah 4:80).

17) “But Allah records their nightly (plots): so keep clear of them, and put thy trust in Allah” (Surah 4:81).

18) “Then fight in Allah’s cause – thou art held responsible only for thyself” (Surah 4:84).

19) “Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: therefore, if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of ) peace, then Allah hath opened no way for you (to war against them)” (Surah 4:90).

20) “O ye who believe! Violate not the sanctity of the Symbols of Allah, nor of the Sacred Month” (Surah 5:2).

Other verses that were abrogated by the verse of the sword:
Surah 5: 99
Surah 6: 66; 104; 106- 108; 112; 135; 158
Surah 7:183; 199
Surah 10: 41, 46, 99, 108, 109
Surah 11: 121
Surah 13: 40
Surah 15: 3, 85, 88, 94
Surah 16: 82, 125, 127
Surah 17: 54
Surah 19: 84
Surah 20: 130, 135
Surah 22: 68
Surah 23: 54, 96
Surah 24: 54
Surah 28: 55
Surah 30: 60
Surah 32: 30
Surah 33:48
Surah 34: 25
Surah 39: 15
Surah 41: 34
Surah 42: 6, 15, 48
Surah 43: 83, 89
Surah 44: 59
Surah 45: 14
Surah 46: 35
Surah 50: 39
Surah 52: 48
Surah 53: 29
Surah 58: 8-9, 11
Surah 73: 10
Surah 76: 8
Surah 86: 17
Surah 88: 22- 24
Surah 109: 6

One cannot help but wonder; why was there a need for changes in the Quran, if it really contained God’s words? If Allah is indeed all-powerful and all-knowing, why would he need to revise and correct himself so often?

ChumpDumper

07-08-2006, 11:21 PM

How many versions of the Bible are there?

E20

07-08-2006, 11:27 PM

Okay bro whatever you win..........,but :lol

You have to take it in what context it is and that's during the times of the Quyrash(sp) and the Muslims. Almost all of those commands to go and fight the pageans are direct consequences from what the Quyarsh did to the Muslims.

"But when the forbidden months are past, 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)....." Surah 9:5

There is a good example. The Muslims postponed any type of battle or hardship vs. the Quyrash during the forbidden month AKA Ramadan, where there should virtually be no sinning if possible. After or during the last days Ramadan was over according to Islamic history the Quyrash broke a treaty with the Muslims and there battles continued.

NorCal510

07-08-2006, 11:53 PM

e20 i thot u was a lil gangsta but u kno yo shit about religion thats fo sho

Burly_Man

07-09-2006, 06:18 AM

Abdullah Al Araby is a pen name. He is a Christian who was born and lived a considerable part of his life in the Islamic world.

He is also a main contributor to the website, Islam Review, it is a Christian Ministry.

This site is about Islam, not Muslims. It is to demonstrate that the fundamental teachings of Islam are incompatible with the Christian faith, and the American way of life. We realize, however, that there are Muslims who may have different interpretations, and thus do not follow these teachings to the letter. Nothing in this site is written with the intention of offending anyone. Our objective is only to present the truth with love and humility.

Islam Review (http://www.islamreview.com/#)

boutons_

07-09-2006, 07:38 AM

jochhejaam

07-09-2006, 07:57 AM

[QUOTE=boutons_] "the fundamental teachings of Islam are incompatible with the Christian faith,"

What's wrong with that? American "Christianity" is fundamentally incompatible with the bulk of science.

Poor analogy bouts. Apples and oranges.

...and Christianity is not validated on whether it's perceived to be compatible with science. (not sure whether you intended that to be a slam on Christianity).

Aggie Hoopsfan

07-09-2006, 09:51 AM

"the fundamental teachings of Islam are incompatible with the Christian faith,"

What's wrong with that? American "Christianity" is fundamentally incompatible with the bulk of science. Christian extremists, benighted in their extremism into believing their mullahs' political hustling, jiving, and marketing, will trash ANYTHING contrary to their extreme distortion of Christianity.

I don't know, maybe it's the fact that you don't see Orthodox Christians running around the globe blowing people up and waging jihad on anyone who doesn't see it their way.

Just a guess.

TreeWhisperer

07-09-2006, 11:31 AM

ChumpDumper

07-09-2006, 01:22 PM

I don't know, maybe it's the fact that you don't see Orthodox Christians running around the globe blowing people up and waging jihad on anyone who doesn't see it their way.

Just a guess.Who blows up abortion clinics?

exstatic

07-09-2006, 02:09 PM

mookie2001

07-09-2006, 04:39 PM

is christianity peaceful?

Extra Stout

07-10-2006, 12:53 PM

Yonivore

07-10-2006, 01:20 PM

Bone to pick: Hitler feigned Christianity for a while, but the Third Reich is best characterized as Nordic Pagan.
Just that one bone?

Violent Christians must ignore the tenets of Christianity in order to be so. Not the case for Muslims.

That's the bone I'd pick.

Extra Stout

07-10-2006, 02:00 PM

Just that one bone?

Violent Christians must ignore the tenets of Christianity in order to be so. Not the case for Muslims.

That's the bone I'd pick.
According to Paul, governments are God's agents of judgment by the sword. One might claim that this should only apply to civil justice based upon the context, but this is not clear. So one can argue somewhat convincingly in favor of Biblically-sponsored state violence. This is why Augustine had to go so far as to flesh out the just war doctrine.

I can't claim to be an expert in Muslim theology, though I've tried to learn some of it in the past five years, but if all the peaceful-looking Muslims I know are part of this grand conspiracy of deception, then I must say that I am really impressed by their discipline to keep up the facade for so long.

I also am impressed by the ability of Muslims to propagate such a wide variety of theological interpretations of the Qu'ran, just as Christianity has done with the Bible, while in reality having just that singular viewpoint of waiting for the right time to pounce and slay the infidel. It's remarkable that they could could in unanimity collaborate on such a sophisticated ruse while simultaneously being a basket case in so many other areas.

E20

07-10-2006, 02:01 PM

Just that one bone?

Violent Christians must ignore the tenets of Christianity in order to be so. Not the case for Muslims.

That's the bone I'd pick.
Bro.....................there is violence in every religous text I.E the Bible:

when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus
(2 Thess 1:7-8).
[Christ will destroy] every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet (1 Cor 15:25).

But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them -- bring them here and slaughter them in my presence
(Luke 19:27).

only hold fast to what you have until I come. To everyone who conquers (temptation to apostasy) and continues to do my works to the end, I will give authority over the nations; to rule them with an iron rod, as when clay pots are shattered -- even as I also received authority from my Father
(Rev 2:25-27, cf. Psalm 2:8-9).

And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron (Rev 12:5).

According to Paul, governments are God's agents of judgment by the sword. One might claim that this should only apply to civil justice based upon the context, but this is not clear. So one can argue somewhat convincingly in favor of Biblically-sponsored state violence. This is why Augustine had to go so far as to flesh out the just war doctrine.

I can't claim to be an expert in Muslim theology, though I've tried to learn some of it in the past five years, but if all the peaceful-looking Muslims I know are part of this grand conspiracy of deception, then I must say that I am really impressed by their discipline to keep up the facade for so long.

I also am impressed by the ability of Muslims to propagate such a wide variety of theological interpretations of the Qu'ran, just as Christianity has done with the Bible, while in reality having just that singular viewpoint of waiting for the right time to pounce and slay the infidel. It's remarkable that they could could in unanimity collaborate on such a sophisticated ruse while simultaneously being a basket case in so many other areas.
No offense, but your sarcasm sucks.

Yonivore

07-10-2006, 02:04 PM

Dr. Sanity (http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/07/youve-got-to-be-carefully-taught.html) has a must-read post looking at how many Arab cultures, particularly the Palestinians, are warping their children by raising them to regard women as nothing and killing Jews as a higher calling. She links to a TV program for children (http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD119706) that encourages them in jihad against the evil Jews. And then she brings in psychological research on what such a warped childrearing environment does to the next generation.

Is there anyone who believes that such medieval attitudes towards women don't have a profoundly negative impact on the personalities of both the men and women who develop in such environments? Males are encouraged to be psychopaths; females to be their willing victims and enablers; as well as breeders for the jihad. When you see large groups of men willingly blowing themselves up to kill innocents, you know there is some sort of psychopathy at work. When the only way to express "gender liberation" is for a woman to imitate the homicidal / suicidal rages of the males--you know there is a problem.

Consider also, how a child could grow up in any sense normal-- knowing that their mother and father think of them only as fodder for jihad and that he has no worth to them otherwise.
Her conclusion should give pause to anyone who optimistically expects the situation to change anytime soon. It also succinctly illustrates the difference between Islam and all other religions.

Psychopathic behavior exists within all cultures. What is different about Islam is that the content of its creed has given personal and societal sanction to such behavior when it is directed toward "inferiors" within the culture and anyone outside the culture. Within this religious framework, murder, torture, intimidation and brutality can be used --not only with impunity--but with guarantees of holiness and rewards in the afterlife. Not only are the adherents safe from censure, they are actually lauded and celebrated as heroes of Islam.

Psychopaths cannot function openly or for long where there is freedom, equality, and the rule of law. That is why terrorists are so desperate to prevent the establisment of democracies and prefer Islamic law which encourages and supports their psychopathy. Individual thought and creativity; reason and justice; and the pursuit of happiness--all are completely incompatible with the psychopath's agenda.
As long as these child-rearing practices are in practice, there will rise up generation after generation who sees murderous martyrdom as the most worthwhile purpose of their lives.

But, there is hope. Checking Iraq the Model today (http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/), he has posted the comments of Iraqis on their reactions to the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier.

"Hamas with their radical false-heroic speech opened the door for extremists in Gaza and Damascus to open a battlefront that will harm the innocent Palestinian citizen and destroy the peace process. Hamas has long been against the peace process and has long worked on halting it"

"There are trends that still live by the past and its dark residues of killing ignorance.

We are the sons of today and our minds must develop at a pace close to that of intellectual development of the world. We cannot solve issues with violence, murder and destruction of nations. We have to use logic and dialogue to convince those you disagree with, and once we do that we will have defeated our enemies, at least on the political arena which enables us to win the moral case before other nations.

Reckless policies that believe only in rifles, cannons and slayings belong to the past and will bring nothing but further destruction and chaos.

Strange they speak in the name of Islam while the prophet of Islam was tolerant in dealing with his enemies [whenever he could] for the sake of his message. Those who slay people like sheep are far from the values of that honorable message"

"Our hearts go out to the family of the Israeli soldier who was kidnapped by some Palestinian group. We share your suffering and we fully support anything you do to free your missing soldier"

"I wonder how much time and blood it will take until Arabs and Muslims realize that the world is not the property of their ancestors and that God is not a trademark of their minds and that terror is a dead-end that leads only to more destruction.

Israel is a civilized country defending herself from barbaric savages whose minds are made of stone…minds that do not want to believe they are living in the 21st century.

What's happening to the Palestinians despite its cruelty is going to be a good lesson for them to learn they must clear their community off the hateful fundamentalist terror mentality…[Quranic verse] "God will not change people until they change what's within themselves"…but, will you change?!!"
There is more reaction. I urge you to read the rest...

Extra Stout

07-10-2006, 02:13 PM

RealEstateDude

07-10-2006, 02:18 PM

E20

07-10-2006, 02:20 PM

Arab culture is a basket case, yes. They have responded to their inability to adapt to the modern world by taking refuge in victimization, violence, and a romanticized view of the brutal past. They are dehumanizing themselves.
Because of guys like OBL and Zarqawi and the rest of the gang able to seduce below average Joes and blowing everything out of porportion(i.e. Israel, US in ME etc.) to get their jobs done.

Yonivore

07-10-2006, 02:21 PM

Bro.....................there is violence in every religous text I.E the Bible:

when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus
(2 Thess 1:7-8).
[Christ will destroy] every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet (1 Cor 15:25).

But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them -- bring them here and slaughter them in my presence
(Luke 19:27).

only hold fast to what you have until I come. To everyone who conquers (temptation to apostasy) and continues to do my works to the end, I will give authority over the nations; to rule them with an iron rod, as when clay pots are shattered -- even as I also received authority from my Father
(Rev 2:25-27, cf. Psalm 2:8-9).

And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron (Rev 12:5).
With the exception of your citation from Luke, which is taken out of the context of the parable of the ten pounds and were the words of a harsh slave-holder that was a character in that parable; not literal instructions for followers of Jesus Christ.

Without researching the others, suffice it to say that from your excerpts alone, it is clear that they all describe the actions of God and are not instructions for followers...such as can be found in the Koran.

No offense, but your sarcasm sucks.
None taken.

E20

07-10-2006, 02:24 PM

With the exception of your citation from Luke, which is taken out of the context of the parable of the ten pounds and were the words of a harsh slave-holder that was a character in that parable; not literal instructions for followers of Jesus Christ.

Without researching the others, suffice it to say that from your excerpts alone, it is clear that they all describe the actions of God and are not instructions for followers...such as can be found in the Koran.

No offense, but your sarcasm sucks.

None taken.
For what it's worth, take into consideration the context and the situation of when the Quran and Hadith were estabilished. The sarcasm thing was towards Extra Stout. :lol

Extra Stout

07-10-2006, 02:26 PM

Yonivore

07-10-2006, 02:26 PM

For what it's worth, take into consideration the context and the situation of when the Quran and Hadith were estabilished. The sarcasm thing was towards Extra Stout. :lol
Someone needs to tell the Jihadis that.

E20

07-10-2006, 02:38 PM

Someone needs to tell the Jihadis that.

These kids look like the bunch that could do it and considered what's going on down there, the US helped liberated some rationale thinkers under oppresion to help people reliaze that the clerics in charge are actually terrorists.

..........
What's happening to the Palestinians despite its cruelty is going to be a good lesson for them to learn they must clear their community off the hateful fundamentalist terror mentality…[Quranic verse] "God will not change people until they change what's within themselves"…but, will you change?!!"......

...........There are trends that still live by the past and its dark residues of killing ignorance.

We are the sons of today and our minds must develop at a pace close to that of intellectual development of the world. We cannot solve issues with violence, murder and destruction of nations. We have to use logic and dialogue to convince those you disagree with.............

Strange they speak in the name of Islam while the prophet of Islam was tolerant in dealing with his enemies [whenever he could] for the sake of his message. Those who slay people like sheep are far from the values of that honorable message"

Yonivore

07-10-2006, 02:39 PM

These kids look like the bunch that could do it and considered what's going on down there, the US helped liberated some rationale thinkers under oppresion to help people reliaze that the clerics in charge are actually terrorists.
Yet another justification for liberating Iraq.

RandomGuy

07-10-2006, 08:34 PM

According to Paul, governments are God's agents of judgment by the sword. One might claim that this should only apply to civil justice based upon the context, but this is not clear. So one can argue somewhat convincingly in favor of Biblically-sponsored state violence. This is why Augustine had to go so far as to flesh out the just war doctrine.

I can't claim to be an expert in Muslim theology, though I've tried to learn some of it in the past five years, but if all the peaceful-looking Muslims I know are part of this grand conspiracy of deception, then I must say that I am really impressed by their discipline to keep up the facade for so long.

I also am impressed by the ability of Muslims to propagate such a wide variety of theological interpretations of the Qu'ran, just as Christianity has done with the Bible, while in reality having just that singular viewpoint of waiting for the right time to pounce and slay the infidel. It's remarkable that they could could in unanimity collaborate on such a sophisticated ruse while simultaneously being a basket case in so many other areas.

Yup. It is their secret Muslim mind meld taught to them directly by Satan himself in their ritual baby-eating ceremonies.

RandomGuy

07-10-2006, 08:39 PM

It is easier to promote violence within Islam than it is within Christianity. That does not mean that terrorism is a "tenet" of Islam, or that all Muslims deep down secretly believe in it and are waiting for the day when they can rise up and smite our throats.

Besides, it's not like it's hard to encourage violence under Christianity. A leader of whatever country can just claim that whatever war he wants to fight is a "just war" by whatever reasoning he can muster up, and a fair number of believers will go along with it. That's how it worked in Europe for nearly two millenia.

Or better yet you get skinheads etc. that claim to have God on their side and readily quote Bible passages to support their beliefs.

KKK members almost to a member call themselves "Good Christians".

Does that make the case for muslims to say that all christians are just waiting to lynch non-believers?

scott

07-10-2006, 10:46 PM

I would argue with the notion that Germany "started" WWI.

Yonivore

07-11-2006, 07:20 AM

I would argue with the notion that Germany "started" WWI.
Wasn't it a family squabble fought by proxy?

spurster

07-11-2006, 08:56 AM

Is the USA peaceful?

DarkReign

07-11-2006, 09:07 AM

Is the USA peaceful?

Does the phrase "pre-emptive war" sound peaceful to you?

Yonivore

07-11-2006, 09:16 AM

Does the phrase "pre-emptive war" sound peaceful to you?
Does the idea of another 9/11 sound peaceful to you, DR?

But, back to the question, it would depend on what you mean by peaceful.

Right now, with the exception of a few inner-city areas, the U.S.A. is damn peaceful. I know the birds are chirping in my 'hood.

FromWayDowntown

07-11-2006, 09:58 AM

I'm not really sure I understand the point of the thread. Is it to say "my religion is better than yours?" or is it to suggest that the world would be a better place if Islam could be eradicated? or is it something between those extremes -- still more rationalization for the proliferation of an amorphous war?

DarkReign

07-11-2006, 10:01 AM

Does the idea of another 9/11 sound peaceful to you, DR?

But, back to the question, it would depend on what you mean by peaceful.

Right now, with the exception of a few inner-city areas, the U.S.A. is damn peaceful. I know the birds are chirping in my 'hood.

I meant peaceful in the global sense, not the domestic.

Pre-emptive war against a country that had ZERO ties to 9/11 is supposed to prevent the next one?

IF we were truly going that road, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia....ooooo, wait.....cant do that....yeah, those guys, real good buds of the Bushies....whoops, my bad.

Yonivore

07-11-2006, 10:27 AM

I meant peaceful in the global sense, not the domestic.
We're still peaceful, in a global sense.

Pre-emptive war against a country that had ZERO ties to 9/11 is supposed to prevent the next one?
Better check with your other Demo-bots, I believe the word "zero," in this context is losing currency; thanks to project Harmony.

But, you go ahead, hang on that article of faith just as long as you can. The look of surprise will be priceless.

IF we were truly going that road, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia....ooooo, wait.....cant do that....yeah, those guys, real good buds of the Bushies....whoops, my bad.
Who says they aren't next...unless, of course, a Democratic Iraq proves to incite the kind of internal reforms -- across the entire middle east -- that it appears to be accomplishing thus far.

Sometimes, you just have to pick the right brick to pull out of the wall, and it all comes tumbling down.

By the way, I'm glad you're not involved in foreign policy decisions.

JoeChalupa

07-11-2006, 12:07 PM

War in the name of religion has been around for centuries and Christianity cannot call itself a peacefull religion either. And I'm a Christian.

DarkReign

07-11-2006, 12:25 PM

By the way, I'm glad you're not involved in foreign policy decisions.

Scary part is that people like you are.

Yonivore

07-11-2006, 12:46 PM

War in the name of religion has been around for centuries and Christianity cannot call itself a peacefull religion either. And I'm a Christian.
You miss the point, Joe.

Are there violent Christians? Yep. There have been for centuries, all of whom had to pervert their religions in order to pursue their violent aims.

Unfortunately, Muslims don't have to pervert their religion in order to find justification for violence. The peaceful Muslims have to ignore fundamental tenets of their faith in order to remain peaceful.

That's the difference.

Yonivore

07-11-2006, 12:46 PM

Scary part is that people like you are.
Scary for terrorists and dictators, I suppose.

gtownspur

07-11-2006, 12:51 PM

Scary for terrorists and dictators, I suppose.

This Dark Reign fella was the same guy who advocated that we wipe out the whole middle east. :lol

Yonivore

07-11-2006, 12:52 PM

This Dark Reign fella was the same guy who advocated that we wipe out the whole middle east. :lol
Wow, when he changes position he doesn't mess around, eh?

gtownspur

07-11-2006, 01:03 PM

Extra Stout

07-11-2006, 01:07 PM

Unfortunately, Muslims don't have to pervert their religion in order to find justification for violence. The peaceful Muslims have to ignore fundamental tenets of their faith in order to remain peaceful.

Not sure that's true. Heard many a Muslim argue the abrogation principle in reverse, or claim that Mohammed's warmongering was a special dispensation during the initial expansion of Islam.

Not fluent in Arabic, so have to take their word that they aren't lying to me.

gtownspur

07-11-2006, 01:16 PM

Not sure that's true. Heard many a Muslim argue the abrogation principle in reverse, or claim that Mohammed's warmongering was a special dispensation during the initial expansion of Islam.

Not fluent in Arabic, so have to take their word that they aren't lying to me.

Let's see. when Mohammed was outnumbered in Mecca, he wrote all those peaceful passages.

When he was exiled in Medina, and enlarged his following, then he grew balls and made his outragous declarations, and from then on we never hear of the peaceful Mohammed again.

Let's see, you want to know the reason why the uproar of the danish cartoons. All you have to point to in the quran is the passage where the lady poet who spoke bad of mohammed, was brutally murdered and stabbed to death along with her unborn baby, and Mohammed excused the killer because he thought it was noble to kill on that reason.

Let's see, when the Romans wanted to apprehend Jesus, Peter drew blood, but jesus restrained him.

1. In the bible, christianity was spread through the blood of martyrs who were killed for the name of God.

2. In the Quran, Islam spread through warfare.

Geez, this should be easy as to which book advocates their believers to be violent. :rolleyes

Yonivore

07-11-2006, 01:21 PM

Not sure that's true. Heard many a Muslim argue the abrogation principle in reverse, or claim that Mohammed's warmongering was a special dispensation during the initial expansion of Islam.

Not fluent in Arabic, so have to take their word that they aren't lying to me.
So, where is the Muslim outrage at those that are allegedly perverting their religion?

There are more Imams in more mosques preaching jihad than not.

I believe the Muslims you've been talking to probably don't hit the mat five times a day and pray to Mecca. I know the Muslims I associate with don't...and, yes, they say the same thing as those you associate with.

But, again, they don't practice the other fundamental requirements of the faith, such as call to prayer...like the majority of Muslims in the world. And, they don't get bent over disrespecting the Koran, nor do many of their wives wear Burkas.

You're talking to Americanized, or acclimated, Muslims. They don't represent the majority. In fact, there are many, in America, with whom you probably don't associate, that would behead those who've said that to you.

You can't judge Muslim religious adherence based on those Muslims that will talk to an infidel.

Extra Stout

07-11-2006, 01:27 PM

Geez, this should be easy as to which book advocates their believers to be violent.
Please just shut up and leave. You are not intelligent enough to debate other humans. You have the reading comprehension of a potato.

I'm well aware that it is much easier to justify violence out of the Qu'ran than it is out of the Bible. If you will scroll up, you will read my saying so. I however disagree that violence is a fundamental tenet of Islam, based upon my discussions and experiences with devout and well-educated Muslims fluent in the Koran. If violence is in fact a tenet of Islam, then either these people are putting on an elaborate ruse with their demeanor and lifestyle, or they somehow have managed to miss the point of their faith despite studying it and practicing it so diligently.

Don't get me wrong, I've also known a couple of wild-eyed Muslim Arabs staggering about rambling on about the murderous Jews. I would have a hard time calling them the experts, though.

Extra Stout

07-11-2006, 01:28 PM

So, where is the Muslim outrage at those that are allegedly perverting their religion?

There are more Imams in more mosques preaching jihad than not.

I believe the Muslims you've been talking to probably don't hit the mat five times a day and pray to Mecca. I know the Muslims I associate with don't...and, yes, they say the same thing as those you associate with.

But, again, they don't practice the other fundamental requirements of the faith, such as call to prayer...like the majority of Muslims in the world. And, they don't get bent over disrespecting the Koran, nor do many of their wives wear Burkas.

You're talking to Americanized, or acclimated, Muslims. They don't represent the majority. In fact, there are many, in America, with whom you probably don't associate, that would behead those who've said that to you.

You can't judge Muslim religious adherence based on those Muslims that will talk to an infidel.
If I had to say there was a difference, it is that most of the Muslims I have met are South and Southeast Asian, as opposed to Arab. And they tend to be very highly educated.

And yes, they have been highly devout for the most part.

Yonivore

07-11-2006, 01:29 PM

Please just shut up and leave. You are not intelligent enough to debate other humans. You have the reading comprehension of a potato.

I'm well aware that it is much easier to justify violence out of the Qu'ran than it is out of the Bible. If you will scroll up, you will read my saying so. I however disagree that violence is a fundamental tenet of Islam, based upon my discussions and experiences with devout and well-educated Muslims fluent in the Koran. If violence is in fact a tenet of Islam, then either these people are putting on an elaborate ruse with their demeanor and lifestyle, or they somehow have managed to miss the point of their faith despite studying it and practicing it so diligently.

Don't get me wrong, I've also known a couple of wild-eyed Muslim Arabs staggering about rambling on about the murderous Jews. I would have a hard time calling them the experts, though.
So, you disagree that it is a fundamental tenet of Islam that everyone should be Muslim or dead?

gtownspur

07-11-2006, 01:29 PM

Extra Stout: But, but, but,........ ah shooks, i give up!

Christians are violent too.

(In a conceeding pussilanomous Dark Reignian Fashion) BOth ChristianS and Muslims should be slaughtered. They're all evil.

E20

07-11-2006, 01:39 PM

So, you disagree that it is a fundamental tenet of Islam that everyone should be Muslim or dead?
Yes I disagree. Proof in the Quran....................

Yonivore

07-11-2006, 01:43 PM

Yes I disagree. Proof in the Quran....................
Okay, let's hear it.

gtownspur

07-11-2006, 01:52 PM

Please just shut up and leave. You are not intelligent enough to debate other humans. You have the reading comprehension of a potato.

I'm well aware that it is much easier to justify violence out of the Qu'ran than it is out of the Bible. If you will scroll up, you will read my saying so. I however disagree that violence is a fundamental tenet of Islam, based upon my discussions and experiences with devout and well-educated Muslims fluent in the Koran. If violence is in fact a tenet of Islam, then either these people are putting on an elaborate ruse with their demeanor and lifestyle, or they somehow have managed to miss the point of their faith despite studying it and practicing it so diligently.

Don't get me wrong, I've also known a couple of wild-eyed Muslim Arabs staggering about rambling on about the murderous Jews. I would have a hard time calling them the experts, though.

Lets see, i said that the quran advocates, that means it clearly states justification for violence, you earlier said that the Quran, could be interpreted to justify violence.

Now who has the comprehension problem?

THat's right dumbass.

And if you get your source on islam from muslims themselves, how do you expect to hear anything damning of that religion.

But you're right. We're not apt to argue with each other. It's a waste of my time.

E20

07-11-2006, 02:01 PM

gtownspur

07-11-2006, 02:03 PM

Okay, let's hear it.

What you will hear will be surah's of how prophet instructed his people to be loving towards the people of the book(christians and Jews).

Later on though those surah's are made worthless when you read on how Mohammed peacefully slaughtered Chrisitans, Greeks, Gypsys, and JEws, and after that made the remainder pay a tribute tax to Isam.

Then you will hear Extra Stink come here and tell us of how he heard his fellow muslims say that the latter verses are abrogated by the earlier.

Such herculian logic is being used here :rolleyes , and i feel like i'm getting owned :spin .

Let's see.

An officer tells Extra Stout to get out of the car, but then tells him to get back in the car. Extra Stout then refuses because the cop's earlier statement abrogated the command he heard now, so now Extra Stout is getting jumped for resisting.

But why argue? Extra Stout will ask muslims if their book advocates violence, and that will be enough. Followed by Extra Stout asking Oj if he ever committed the murders, and asking Farrakhan if the white man was created by a mad scientist in africa.

Inconclusion. Extra Stout's experiences are the moral authority here. Just give up.

FromWayDowntown

07-11-2006, 02:04 PM

So is the point that we should wipe out Muslims because their religion advocates or provides a justification for violence?

E20

07-11-2006, 02:07 PM

What you will hear will be surah's of how prophet instructed his people to be loving towards the people of the book(christians and Jews).

Later on though those surah's are made worthless when you read on how Mohammed peacefully slaughtered Chrisitans, Greeks, Gypsys, and JEws, and after that made the remainder pay a tribute tax to Isam.

Then you will hear Extra Stink come here and tell us of how he heard his fellow muslims say that the latter verses are abrogated by the earlier.

Such herculian logic is being used here :rolleyes , and i feel like i'm getting owned :spin .

Let's see.

An officer tells Extra Stout to get out of the car, but then tells him to get back in the car. Extra Stout then refuses because the cop's earlier statement abrogated the command he heard now, so now Extra Stout is getting jumped for resisting.

But why argue? Extra Stout will ask muslims if their book advocates violence, and that will be enough. Followed by Extra Stout asking Oj if he ever committed the murders, and asking Farrakhan if the white man was created by a mad scientist in africa.

Inconclusion. Extra Stout's experiences are the moral authority here. Just give up.
So basically, you don't care about the written proof.

gtownspur

07-11-2006, 02:07 PM

So is the point that we should wipe out Muslims because their religion advocates or provides a justification for violence?

I guess your point is that no one can believe that Islam advocates violence because then we would have to kill them, and thus your PC world would not stay intact.

Please elaborate, because no one on this board with the exception of Dark Reign has promoted that.

gtownspur

07-11-2006, 02:09 PM

So basically, you don't care about the written proof................

The written proof is contradictory and you know this. What's the point. You're just going to say that the peaceful verses carry more weight.

E20

07-11-2006, 02:10 PM

I guess your point is that no one can believe that Islam advocates violence because then we would have to kill them, and thus your PC world would not stay intact.

Please elaborate, because no one on this board with the exception of Dark Reign has promoted that.
So YOU don't advocate violence, but you're willing to kill 2 billion people?

E20

07-11-2006, 02:11 PM

The written proof is contradictory and you know this. What's the point. You're just going to say that the peaceful verses carry more weight.
You can easily read Ancient Arabic and translate from Ancient Arabic to Arabic to English. Also you use fake sources and sources that are from people who obiviously hate Muslims.

P.S If you want contradiction, all Religous texts have contradictions...........

Later on though those surah's are made worthless when you read on how Mohammed peacefully slaughtered Chrisitans, Greeks, Gypsys, and JEws, and after that made the remainder pay a tribute tax to Isam.
Also.........sources??? :lol

DarkReign

07-11-2006, 02:30 PM

He is very careful not to piss off the resident moonbats too much or step on their toes.

He will poke fun at the nbadan's but will try to compensate by going after conservatives with an asshole left of Extra Stunt.

Sure, sure. Got me there, no doubt.

I dont cowtow to anyone and could care less who I offend or dont (though I do not try on purpose).

Bottom line: I would have waited. Thats my opinion. The region was ripe for a iron-clad reason to invade with international support.

As much as it may pain some, the truth is the American military is over-extended and its only because we didnt have patience. I dont like the UN and certainly hold no allegiance to any piss-poor country in the middle east. But if you use your tools effectively, the UN and the ME could be very useful.

I think this administration (and by proxy this government) failed to use its tools to maximum efficency. Either by not recognizing its best use or disregarding them as not useful. The UN is a useful tool, no matter how ineffectual. If half the force occupying Iraq right now were forces other than American, half the Administrations problems wouldnt even exist. Administration doesnt have problems = America has no problems. And vice versa.

Thats why the presidency is so important. Its a direct reflection of the American people as a whole, like it or not. Here, on an American board, I criticize and poke fun at the leadership in this country daily. When I venture into other countries (very often) I put up an ironclad facade of support out of loyalty.

Either way, the ME could have been done much differently and IMO, much more effectively. I think this President has made a mess out of a messy situation.

Wipe the ME off the face of the earth? You got my vote. Pussy foot inside and out, lie about what your true intentions in the region are then fuck that up beyond any sort of recovery, set back our foreign relations about 40 years, put way too much pressure on our largest ally basically causing its people to openly protest its alliance with the US, etc.

Yeah, sounds like we have a winner. I am not a Bush crony. Sorry. He fucked up. He fucked up reeeeeal bad. What he has done will damage our country for many Presidents to come. Congrats.

Yonivore

07-11-2006, 02:35 PM

There is no compulsion in religion." (The Qur'an 2:256)

"Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabaeans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness their wage awaits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow." (Q. 2:62)

"If it had been thy Lord's Will, they would all have believed, all who are on earth! Wilt thou then compel mankind against their will to believe!" (Q. 10:99)

"To you your religion, and to me my religion." (Q. 109:6)

"Fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress not: God loves not the aggressors (2:190)"

More?
Yeah, explain the context of each passage. What was going on? Are these proverbs or are they scriptural imperatives?

When the Koran is cited by Muslims, or apologists such as yourself, in response to assertions it is a violent religion, it is often discussed in such a way as to shut down a meaningful exploration of the text. A few mild passages are usually offered, as if these fully represented the contents of a scripture containing 6,000-plus verses.

But, the Koran -- literally interpreted to mean "recitation" -- is a collection of diverse materials that include polemic, praise, eschatology, law, narrative, battle calls, and details of the domestic life of the Prophet.

The Koran contains five commands to kill and 12 commands to fight (literally, "try to kill"). Most are found in the second (verses 190, 191, 193, 244), fourth (vv. 76, 84, 89, 91) and ninth (vv. 5, 12, 14, 29, 36, 123) suras.

And, in classical Muslim discussions of these verses, two verses attracted more attention than any others. They came to be known as "the sword verse" (9.5) and "the verse of tribute" (9.29).

The verse of tribute concerns the "people of the book" -- generally understood by Muslims to be faith communities possessing a scripture, especially Jews and Christians. The command is to fight those who have been given the book "until they pay the tribute (jizya) out of hand and have been humbled."

The command in the sword verse is to "kill the associators (mushrikin) wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush." At face value, therefore, polytheists appear to be at greater risk than Jews or Christians. But Jews and Christians only evade the same fate by subjugating themselves to Islam and paying a fee to do so.

The Arabic verb in all of these verses is not the verb related to jihad. Rather, it is the verb qatala in its first ("to kill") and third ("to fight, try to kill") forms.

The Koran contains many other verses using forms of qatala which -- though not imperatives -- appear to encourage fighting or killing. Among these is 61.4: "Allah loves those who fight in his way."

These are the commands. But what do they mean?

David S. Powers, professor of near eastern studies at Cornell University, has noted that Muslim scholars of abrogation such as Ibn Salama (d. 1020) claimed the "sword verse" cited above (9.5) had abrogating power over 124 other verses, including "every other verse in the Koran which commands or implies anything less than a total offensive against the non-believers." U.S.-born historian John Wansbrough found that the sword verse "became the scriptural prop of a formulation designed to cover any and all situations which might arise between the Muslim community and its enemies." Influential Islamist authors such as 'Abd al-Salam Faraj, Maulana Maududi and Sayyid Qutb have all expressed their agreement with the classical interpretation of the commands to fight and kill.

A famous illustration of this Islamist tendency is in the pre-9/11 communiques of Osama bin Laden. His "Declaration of War" of October, 1996, makes prominent use of Koranic commands to fight and kill. His Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders of February, 1998, opens with the sword verse and applies it directly to those he considers to be the modern enemies of Islam.

Indeed, one of the greatest challenges facing peace advocates in Muslim nations is that the Islamist voices that seem to have the greatest appeal to youth are those that portray the Koranic commands to kill as clear and unequivocal. Some of these Islamists have already carefully processed Western criticisms and have deliberately reasserted the classical understandings. For instance, Egypt's Sayyid Qutb, a guiding force of the Muslim Brotherhood (from which al-Qaeda sprang), wrote that the tendency to interpret the Koran as if it enjoins only defensive war is an error of Muslims minds "defeated by the pressure of unfavourable conditions and the treacherous propaganda of the orientalists."

It's not a peaceful religion, except for the Muslim cowards that want us all to just get along.

Kind of like Catholics that think abortion is okie dokie. It's obviously, emphatically, contradictory to their religion -- but, somehow, they're able to ignore that and call themselves Catholic anyway.

FromWayDowntown

07-11-2006, 02:35 PM

I guess your point is that no one can believe that Islam advocates violence because then we would have to kill them, and thus your PC world would not stay intact.

Please elaborate, because no one on this board with the exception of Dark Reign has promoted that.

I'm not disputing your thesis. I'm wondering what the hell you are advocating that we do about it. Are you advocating that we eliminate all Muslims?

Yonivore

07-11-2006, 02:37 PM

So is the point that we should wipe out Muslims because their religion advocates or provides a justification for violence?
No, just those Muslims that won't stop killing until they, themselves, are dead.

FromWayDowntown

07-11-2006, 03:04 PM

No, just those Muslims that won't stop killing until they, themselves, are dead.

And?

Yonivore

07-11-2006, 03:17 PM

And?
And nothing. That'd do the trick. Well, as far as Islamo-fascism is concerned.

E20

07-11-2006, 03:28 PM

Yeah, explain the context of each passage. What was going on? Are these proverbs or are they scriptural imperatives?

When the Koran is cited by Muslims, or apologists such as yourself, in response to assertions it is a violent religion, it is often discussed in such a way as to shut down a meaningful exploration of the text. A few mild passages are usually offered, as if these fully represented the contents of a scripture containing 6,000-plus verses.

But, the Koran -- literally interpreted to mean "recitation" -- is a collection of diverse materials that include polemic, praise, eschatology, law, narrative, battle calls, and details of the domestic life of the Prophet.

The Koran contains five commands to kill and 12 commands to fight (literally, "try to kill"). Most are found in the second (verses 190, 191, 193, 244), fourth (vv. 76, 84, 89, 91) and ninth (vv. 5, 12, 14, 29, 36, 123) suras.

And, in classical Muslim discussions of these verses, two verses attracted more attention than any others. They came to be known as "the sword verse" (9.5) and "the verse of tribute" (9.29).

The verse of tribute concerns the "people of the book" -- generally understood by Muslims to be faith communities possessing a scripture, especially Jews and Christians. The command is to fight those who have been given the book "until they pay the tribute (jizya) out of hand and have been humbled."

The command in the sword verse is to "kill the associators (mushrikin) wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush." At face value, therefore, polytheists appear to be at greater risk than Jews or Christians. But Jews and Christians only evade the same fate by subjugating themselves to Islam and paying a fee to do so.

The Arabic verb in all of these verses is not the verb related to jihad. Rather, it is the verb qatala in its first ("to kill") and third ("to fight, try to kill") forms.

The Koran contains many other verses using forms of qatala which -- though not imperatives -- appear to encourage fighting or killing. Among these is 61.4: "Allah loves those who fight in his way."

These are the commands. But what do they mean?

David S. Powers, professor of near eastern studies at Cornell University, has noted that Muslim scholars of abrogation such as Ibn Salama (d. 1020) claimed the "sword verse" cited above (9.5) had abrogating power over 124 other verses, including "every other verse in the Koran which commands or implies anything less than a total offensive against the non-believers." U.S.-born historian John Wansbrough found that the sword verse "became the scriptural prop of a formulation designed to cover any and all situations which might arise between the Muslim community and its enemies." Influential Islamist authors such as 'Abd al-Salam Faraj, Maulana Maududi and Sayyid Qutb have all expressed their agreement with the classical interpretation of the commands to fight and kill.

A famous illustration of this Islamist tendency is in the pre-9/11 communiques of Osama bin Laden. His "Declaration of War" of October, 1996, makes prominent use of Koranic commands to fight and kill. His Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders of February, 1998, opens with the sword verse and applies it directly to those he considers to be the modern enemies of Islam.

Indeed, one of the greatest challenges facing peace advocates in Muslim nations is that the Islamist voices that seem to have the greatest appeal to youth are those that portray the Koranic commands to kill as clear and unequivocal. Some of these Islamists have already carefully processed Western criticisms and have deliberately reasserted the classical understandings. For instance, Egypt's Sayyid Qutb, a guiding force of the Muslim Brotherhood (from which al-Qaeda sprang), wrote that the tendency to interpret the Koran as if it enjoins only defensive war is an error of Muslims minds "defeated by the pressure of unfavourable conditions and the treacherous propaganda of the orientalists."

It's not a peaceful religion, except for the Muslim cowards that want us all to just get along.

Kind of like Catholics that think abortion is okie dokie. It's obviously, emphatically, contradictory to their religion -- but, somehow, they're able to ignore that and call themselves Catholic anyway.
The violence written is towards the Quyrash, sure you can argue it another way and given the fact that throught history Muslims have used the Quran to start wars and get there ways whether it be land or power.

During Islam's birth period which took around 20 years to full establish it self it was the Muslims vs the Quyrash. I don't know how Muhammad could even think of saying Kill all Christians, because for a good amount of time he was living in Medina, which was a province under Abbesyinia which was ruled under a Christian King. In the Quran it says that God does not condone killing(Sura 9 verse 116). It also says that not everybody is intended to be Muslim, if it was then if God is all powerful it should be like that(Sura 10 Line 99. Whatever Muhammad says that is contradictory to the Quran is nullified because in Islam. God > Muhammad and anything in the Quran > Hadith.

The Koran contains five commands to kill and 12 commands to fight (literally, "try to kill"). Most are found in the second (verses 190, 191, 193, 244), fourth (vv. 76, 84, 89, 91) and ninth (vv. 5, 12, 14, 29, 36, 123) suras.
Sura 2 lines 190-194
[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.

[2:191] You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those.

[2:192] If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

[2:193] You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.

[2:194] During the Sacred Months, aggression may be met by an equivalent response. If they attack you, you may retaliate by inflicting an equitable retribution. You shall observe GOD and know that GOD is with the righteous.

[2:195] You shall spend in the cause of GOD

V. 244
[2:244] You shall fight in the cause of GOD, and know that GOD is Hearer, Knower.

Sura 4
[4:75] Why should you not fight in the cause of GOD when weak men, women, and children are imploring: "Our Lord, deliver us from this community whose people are oppressive, and be You our Lord and Master."

[4:76] Those who believe are fighting for the cause of GOD, while those who disbelieve are fighting for the cause of tyranny. Therefore, you shall fight the devil's allies; the devil's power is nil.

[4:77] Have you noted those who were told, "You do not have to fight; all you need to do is observe the Contact Prayers and give the obligatory charity," then, when fighting was decreed for them, they feared the people as much as they feared GOD, or even more? They said, "Our Lord, why did You force this fighting on us? If only You respite us for awhile!" Say, "The materials of this world are nil, while the Hereafter is far better for the righteous, and you never suffer the slightest injustice."

[4:91] You will find others who wish to make peace with you, and also with their people. However, as soon as war erupts, they fight against you. Unless these people leave you alone, offer you peace, and stop fighting you, you may fight them when you encounter them. Against these, we give you a clear authorization.

[9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
**Side note** This is directly towards the Quyrash and the Pageans, during Ramadan(The Forbidden Month) the Muslims and Quyrash had a treaty for no fighting. The treaty was broken, fighting continued after Ramadan.

[9:12] If they violate their oaths after pledging to keep their covenants, and attack your religion, you may fight the leaders of paganism - you are no longer bound by your covenant with them - that they may refrain.
**Simple enough, if they break the treaty and continue to fight, then go on ahead and fight back.***

[9:13] Would you not fight people who violated their treaties, tried to banish the messenger, and they are the ones who started the war in the first place? Are you afraid of them? GOD is the One you are supposed to fear, if you are believers.

[9:14] You shall fight them, for GOD will punish them at your hands, humiliate them, grant you victory over them, and cool the chests of the believers.
**Same as above, I'm not gonna post lines 29, 36 and 123 in Sura 9, becaue they're all towards the Quyarsh and say the exact samething.**

Extra Stout

07-11-2006, 03:33 PM

So, you disagree that it is a fundamental tenet of Islam that everyone should be Muslim or dead?
Basically.

From what I can see, the fundamental tenets of Islam are the Five Pillars.

It's hard for me to understand how anyone with long-term exposure to the greater Christian community could think there would be widespread doctrinal agreement about anything but the absolute bare basics of any faith among 1 billion people. They aren't drones.

It's also hard for me to understand how people with so little exposure to a faith can make sweeping generalizations about it. It irritates me when liberals do that to Christianity.

If killing the infidels were one of the true obvious fundamental pillars of Islam, then the majority of devout Muslims would be out there killing infidels. To claim that the reason they aren't is simply because they don't know their faith, a faith that you do not yourself study or practice in any depth, is utterly presumptuous.

Clearly, it's obvious that in the contemporary Middle Eastern culture, a sizable minority of people practice a violent brand of Islam. It seems fairly clear that there are verses in the Koran that can be used to glorify religious violence. These things happen a lot more in Islam in 2006 than they do in any other religions today. That in itself is enough of a problem. That is enough of a flaw in that belief system. That is enough of a big waving crimson red flag of a crisis for the whole world to deal with.

Since you purportedly are a conservative Christian, it would follow that you believe that Islam is invalid and not from God. If you believe it is not from God, then it follows that it can be... somewhat malleable in its practice. And that in a big, long, sometimes self-contradictory tome like the Qu-ran, which requires interpretation to figure out which verses cancel which other ones out, over time, in the Zeitgeist of that part of the world, the faithful can be persuaded to heed the more peaceful verses over the more violent ones under the right set of geopolitical and socioeconomic circumstances. I always thought that was the goal anyway.

I wonder what is the point of arguing that Islam is inherently and unavoidably violent? Are you arguing to eliminate all Muslims? To eliminate the practice of Islam? To kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity? Or are you implying that Islamic terrorism will never go away?

FromWayDowntown

07-11-2006, 03:38 PM

And nothing. That'd do the trick. Well, as far as Islamo-fascism is concerned.

So wipe 'em out, eh?

Extra Stout

07-11-2006, 03:50 PM

Exactly how fundamentalist does own have to be to dictate that only one interpretation of a religion one doesn't even believe in or practice is the "correct" one, and that everyone who doesn't practice it that way are "cowards?"

It would be absurd even if said person had anything more than a cursory knowledge about said religion.

Hey, FWD, I've decided that Stalinism is the only correct left-of-center ideology. Since you're merely a center-left moderate, that must mean you are just a mealy-mouthed coward. If you truly embraced your ideology, you'd let all the non-collectivizing farmers starve to death and execute all dissenters.

Spurminator

07-11-2006, 03:54 PM

I wonder what is the point of arguing that Islam is inherently and unavoidably violent? Are you arguing to eliminate all Muslims? To eliminate the practice of Islam? To kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity? Or are you implying that Islamic terrorism will never go away?

I've wondered that myself. Seems to me the only thing it accomplishes is to fuel the belief of many Muslims that the West is waging a war on Islam.

I'd like for peaceful Muslims to be morally aligned with us against Terrorism, and I don't think it helps our cause to accuse them all of following a violent set of beliefs. If we expect Middle Easterners to reject Terror organizations' rhetoric on the "Western War on Islam" then it's probably not in our best interests to flaunt our supposed religious/moral superiority.

Yonivore

07-11-2006, 03:58 PM

So wipe 'em out, eh?
Like I said, just those that are bent on killing everyone else.

Yonivore

07-11-2006, 04:00 PM

Hey, FWD, I've decided that Stalinism is the only correct left-of-center ideology. Since you're merely a center-left moderate, that must mean you are just a mealy-mouthed coward. If you truly embraced your ideology, you'd let all the non-collectivizing farmers starve to death and execute all dissenters.
Exactly as the Islamo-fascists see it, I believe. Nice. Put very succinctly.

Osama couldn't have said it better himself.

ChumpDumper

07-11-2006, 04:01 PM

It was my first question at the beginning of this thread. Why are we going through the motions of trying to establish a democracy in Iraq as a shining beacon for the Islamic world to follow when all we should be doing according to the chickenhawks on this board is genocide?

Extra Stout

07-11-2006, 04:02 PM

I've wondered that myself. Seems to me the only thing it accomplishes is to fuel the belief of many Muslims that the West is waging a war on Islam.

I'd like for peaceful Muslims to be morally aligned with us against Terrorism, and I don't think it helps our cause to accuse them all of following a violent set of beliefs. If we expect Middle Easterners to reject Terror organizations' rhetoric on the "Western War on Islam" then it's probably not in our best interests to flaunt our supposed religious/moral superiority.
Are these folks worried a whole bunch of church-going Americans are going to convert to Islamism and start blowing up buildings unless they label it a violent death cult? Are they thinking that Dr. Abdel Aziz at Minneapolis General Hospital is going to read their essays and say, "My goodness! I was not aware my wife, five children, and I were following a violent death cult! Lord Jesus, I want be a Christian!"

The thinking is so weak.

Extra Stout

07-11-2006, 04:04 PM

Exactly as the Islamo-fascists see it, I believe. Nice. Put very succinctly.

Osama couldn't have said it better himself.
OK...

And you said above that peaceful Muslims are cowards.

So you agree with Osama bin Laden and the terrorists?

Yonivore

07-11-2006, 04:11 PM

OK...

And you said above that peaceful Muslims are cowards.

So you agree with Osama bin Laden and the terrorists?
Maybe a poor choice of words. I meant to insinuate they didn't practice what their religion preached because, well, they don't want to be violent because of the consequences. I used the analogy of pro-abortion Catholics.

Coward was the first word that popped into my head. You pick.

Obversely, I believe they don't speak out against the violent elements of their religion for the same reason -- they don't like the consequences. Those people tend to kill you if you disagree.

Extra Stout

07-11-2006, 04:33 PM

Maybe a poor choice of words. I meant to insinuate they didn't practice what their religion preached because, well, they don't want to be violent because of the consequences. I used the analogy of pro-abortion Catholics.

Coward was the first word that popped into my head. You pick.

Obversely, I believe they don't speak out against the violent elements of their religion for the same reason -- they don't like the consequences. Those people tend to kill you if you disagree.
I think that Islam is a false religion made by men. I think that its holy book requires interpretation because a lot of it appears muddled and self-contradictory. I think that since it is so subject to interpretation, there will be multiple interpretations. I in no way think that anything approaching a majority, much less a consensus, of Muslim scholars, would subscribe to this "abrogation principle" that elevates the verse of the sword above all others.

Maybe 90% sincerely believe it preaches peace, and 10% believe it preaches violence. That's still 100 million potential terrorists. I also would say that a big chunk of that 900 million non-terrorist group either cower in fear of the violent ones and just try to stay out of their way, or are indifferent to their violence against the infidels even though they themselves don't think it's right to lift up the sword.

Even then, it's a huge-ass problem, and you don't have to sacrifice your intellectual consistency, or rely on fallacies, or impugn the sincerity of the other 900 million, to communicate it.

FromWayDowntown

07-11-2006, 04:40 PM

Like I said, just those that are bent on killing everyone else.

Should the guards at the camps be invested with the discretion to decide which Muslims belong to which groups?

ChumpDumper

07-11-2006, 04:42 PM

C'mon, Yoni merely wants to kill 100 million Muslims.

No biggie.

Extra Stout

07-11-2006, 04:44 PM

Should the guards at the camps be invested with the discretion to decide which Muslims belong to which groups?
FWD, weren't you aware that the Islamo-fascist ones have a big green stripe going down their backs? Super easy to find.

Yonivore

07-11-2006, 04:58 PM

Should the guards at the camps be invested with the discretion to decide which Muslims belong to which groups?
If you encounter them on the battlefield...take no prisoners. Kind of eliminates the need for guards or camps.

Oh, and that is neither a violation of the Geneva Conventions or the internationally recognized rules of engagement.

Extra Stout

07-11-2006, 04:59 PM

If you encounter them on the battlefield...take no prisoners. Kind of eliminates the need for guards or camps.

Oh, and that is neither a violation of the Geneva Conventions or the internationally recognized rules of engagement.
That's sort of like trying to get rid of the ants in your house by squashing the ones you see.

ChumpDumper

07-11-2006, 05:00 PM

How many invasions would getting rid of them all necessitate?

Yonivore

07-11-2006, 05:04 PM

That's sort of like trying to get rid of the ants in your house by squashing the ones you see.
Yeah, I suppose you could just give in to to Dhimmitude.

FromWayDowntown

07-11-2006, 05:05 PM

If you encounter them on the battlefield...take no prisoners. Kind of eliminates the need for guards or camps.

Kind of creates the need for a lot more battlefields -- unless you plan on success in cordially inviting all of the world's Islamo-facists to the extant theaters of operation.

Wouldn't rounding them all up be a more certain and expedient solution?

Extra Stout

07-11-2006, 05:10 PM

Yeah, I suppose you could just give in to to Dhimmitude.
If you go to Home Depot, they sell these little ant traps.

Extra Stout

07-11-2006, 05:21 PM

In the real world outside simple black and white Yoni thinking, there are nice Muslims and bad Muslims, and you can't tell the difference until either they start shooting at you or blow themselves up or hijack your airplane, and our leaders would prefer not to just kill all of them, good and bad, just yet.

This is why national leaders think really hard and make hard decisions about how to solve problems, because they are not easy problems to solve. On the battlefield, terrorists do not wear signs that say "TERRORIST." They look just like everybody else up until the IED blows up.

Extra Stout

07-11-2006, 05:33 PM

gtownspur

07-11-2006, 05:53 PM

Oh, Yoni, just because I gave you an intellectual ass-whooping doesn't mean I'm some weak-kneed liberal. I understand there's a very real threat, and I accept that someday in order to prevent the destruction of our society by that violent 10% or so, we may have to kill a whole bunch of that other 90% that aren't violent.

Right now, I think it's important to remember that resorting to that is not a good thing even though if horrors befall it might become necessary, and we have to do everything in our power to make sure it never, ever comes to that, and that starting to objectify all those people is lazy, amoral thinking to rationalize the horrible last resort.

The point is not to advocate destruction of muslims, but to bring awareness to the western world that Islam is a religion of war and submission.

The western world needs to regulate muslim immigration, as europe is beggining to learn this already.

The point is, that if we are gonna fight terrorism, we need to acknowledge the truth. We won't win this with half truths, and maintain a PC fable.

Islam is dangerous. the Quran has steps in which to conquer civilizations. IT involves deception that muslims are tolerant, then once they gain a majority, they then advocate sharia law, and begin to conquer.

THis is already going on in places like the Ukraine, africa, and australia.

FromWayDowntown

07-11-2006, 06:28 PM

The point is not to advocate destruction of muslims, but to bring awareness to the western world that Islam is a religion of war and submission.

The western world needs to regulate muslim immigration, as europe is beggining to learn this already.

The point is, that if we are gonna fight terrorism, we need to acknowledge the truth. We won't win this with half truths, and maintain a PC fable.

Islam is dangerous. the Quran has steps in which to conquer civilizations. IT involves deception that muslims are tolerant, then once they gain a majority, they then advocate sharia law, and begin to conquer.

THis is already going on in places like the Ukraine, africa, and australia.

Shouldn't the United States then immediately expel all Muslims who won't immediately disavow their religion?

Phenomanul

07-11-2006, 07:27 PM

If you all haven't watched it already, I recommend you all watch the movie Syriana.

Yonivore

07-11-2006, 08:07 PM

Kind of creates the need for a lot more battlefields -- unless you plan on success in cordially inviting all of the world's Islamo-facists to the extant theaters of operation.

Wouldn't rounding them all up be a more certain and expedient solution?
Well, they obligingly swarmed to Iraq. And, in case you didn't know, we're probably involved in various levels of conflict with terrorists in over two dozen countries.

FromWayDowntown

07-11-2006, 08:44 PM

Wouldn't it be fun to turn the tables on those bloodthirsty Muslims by declaring a jihad on them?!?!?

Yonivore

07-11-2006, 09:28 PM

Just to help you realize how much of a useful idiot you and the other liberal kooks have become, the Mudville Gazette (http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/005972.html) has a must-read post on the al Qaeda video depicting the bodies of the two American soldiers who were reportedly abducted in Iraq. It begins:

When confronted with savagery one can demonstrate courage or flee. The second option is available for a limited time only. Eventually there will be nowhere to run.
Greyhawk's post needs to be read in its entirety; it makes several distinct and important points. To abstract, very briefly:

1) This video is consistent with the strategy laid out in an important al Qaeda manifesto titled The Management of Savagery:

- Brutal killings must be explained in a manner that justifies the atrocity.

- Public opinion must be turned against the enemy soldiers.

- Al Qaeda should be seen as the solution to the chaos/savagery - even as they foment more such atrocities (hence the title).

These efforts are to be directed at the local Muslim population in any conflict. In Iraq, with a majority non-Sunni population, they will achieve limited success. But the even more powerful response is desired from the population of the enemy state - erosion of support for the effort on the home front.

2) The video's claim that the murder of the two Americans was in retaliation for the alleged rape and murder of an Iraqi girl, and the murder of several family members, is in all probability false. al Qaeda learned of this incident, in all likelihood, from American media as a result of the military's own investigation.

3) Happily, it appears most likely from the video that the two Americans, Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker, were not abducted at all, but rather were killed in the initial attack, along with the third soldier whose body was left in the vehicle. In an email to us, Greyhawk writes:

This video offers evidence (if you know where to look) that those soldiers weren't "abducted", but were more likely killed in the original attack. *** Obviously I don't offer this as conclusive proof, but I am confident this was the case.

FromWayDowntown

07-11-2006, 09:55 PM

Yeah, I don't see bravery coming in the form of declaring wars based on religious disagreements.

I don't dispute that from an objective standpoint, the guiding texts of almost any religion can be read by someone in some fashion that supports elimination of non-believers. I don't dispute that there are some who pervert religion to support particular agendas. When those individuals and those who are likeminded begin killing innocents, I'm certainly in favor of killing them. Hence, my repeated support here for the effort of American troops in Afghanistan. And while my political sensibilities tell me that the decision to invade Iraq was not the correct one, I am quite certain that I've never posted anything in this forum in which I call for withdraw from Iraq or suggest that the effort there should be undermined. I make no bones about my opposition to this President and his Administration, but other than a fanatical desire to derisively label those who believe differently than you do, I don't think you can extrapolate from that statement and deduce that I am somehow opposed to the effort of our troops in Iraq now that they are there.

I also don't think that the prosecution of a war against a relative minority of religious zealots offers carte blanche to eliminate others who coincidentally share a religion but have not so distorted that religion in murderous ways.

And I'll never support the notion that an entire religious group should be eradicated because a small percentage of those who are faithful to the religion see belief as a ground for death and destruction.

If you're trying to convince me that I'm foolish if I don't see Islam as something inherently bad or dangerous or flawed and that the world would be a better place without Muslims, I can assure you that I'm quite thankful that I'll never reach your level of xenophobia.

Yonivore

07-11-2006, 10:02 PM

FromWayDowntown

07-11-2006, 10:05 PM

I don't know how many different ways I can put this for you but, let me try one more.

I will be satisfied when only those Muslims who believe their religion is a peaceful religion are left.

Then why the generalizations throughout this thread about Islam? I've been glib here until my last post, largely because I find the premise of the thread to be ridiculous. I was inclined to assume a degree of glibness in your posts, but frankly, as the thread has progressed, my willingness to believe that has significantly diminished.

Yonivore

07-11-2006, 10:46 PM

Then why the generalizations throughout this thread about Islam? I've been glib here until my last post, largely because I find the premise of the thread to be ridiculous. I was inclined to assume a degree of glibness in your posts, but frankly, as the thread has progressed, my willingness to believe that has significantly diminished.
I distinguished between the Islamo-fascists, the "cowards" in their faith who stand by while their faith is perverted, and those who are genuinely outraged by the acts of others in the name of Islam (even if they are a small minority).

Sorry you weren't clear on that.

Extra Stout

07-11-2006, 10:55 PM

The point is not to advocate destruction of muslims, but to bring awareness to the western world that Islam is a religion of war and submission.

The western world needs to regulate muslim immigration, as europe is beggining to learn this already.

The point is, that if we are gonna fight terrorism, we need to acknowledge the truth. We won't win this with half truths, and maintain a PC fable.

Islam is dangerous. the Quran has steps in which to conquer civilizations. IT involves deception that muslims are tolerant, then once they gain a majority, they then advocate sharia law, and begin to conquer.

THis is already going on in places like the Ukraine, africa, and australia.
Sometimes I wonder whether gculo is for real or if one of the smart posters just made him up as an idiot character for laughs.

scott

07-11-2006, 11:04 PM

Muslims are almost as big a threat to America as those filthy homosexuals.

jochhejaam

07-11-2006, 11:13 PM

Muslims are almost as big a threat to America as those filthy homosexuals.
Let's hope the two never, ever join forces!

Homuslexuals (Copywrite 2006)

gtownspur

07-12-2006, 09:12 AM

Shouldn't the United States then immediately expel all Muslims who won't immediately disavow their religion?

No, but we should limit the flow of muslim immigration so that we won't encounter a problem like Europe is already experiencing.

I mean you could write this off as kook talk, but in the end it is you putting your head in the sand.

Is accepting the fact that a Religion has violent tenets, present a daunting problem? Will this affect your fairy tale-wonderland-Politically Correct-world in which no religion can ever be dangerous because then it would collapse your house of cards?

FromWayDowntown

07-12-2006, 09:28 AM

No, but we should limit the flow of muslim immigration so that we won't encounter a problem like Europe is already experiencing.

But if the religion is fundamentally a violent one and its adherents are disposed to violence because they are Islamic, wouldn't the better policy be immediate expulsion? I mean you limit the problem by curbing immigration certainly, but if you're right, you can completely eradicate the problem by expelling, interring, or even just executing all Muslims. After all: no Islam, no Islamic violence, right?

If you're going to take a stand, I'd think you wouldn't want to be willy-nilly about it.

xrayzebra

07-12-2006, 09:29 AM

The militant Muslim leaders are not in this for religious purposes. They want the
political power and wealth that goes with it. They use the religion and their
followers to gain this political power and wealth.

I do have a problem with any group that refuses to assimilate into the culture that
THEY have chosen to join. Diversity wasn't what made this country great. It was
the fact that all became one. Hence the melting pot. Diversity is what destroys.
i.e. tribes. Look at the ME countries. They have great diversity. They are called
tribes and live as such.

Look at many of the European countries. The Mullahs control many of the people
who have immigrated to those countries and dictated what they can and must
wear and live and think and you see the consequences. The same is happening
here in the United States. If you don't want to become part of the country
you have chosen, then you should stay where you were. You cannot expect
the adopted country to change their customs and way of life to suit you. When
in Rome........

FromWayDowntown

07-12-2006, 10:01 AM

I do have a problem with any group that refuses to assimilate into the culture that THEY have chosen to join. Diversity wasn't what made this country great. It was the fact that all became one. Hence the melting pot. Diversity is what destroys. i.e. tribes. Look at the ME countries. They have great diversity. They are called tribes and live as such.

Certainly that explains why most major American cities have Chinatowns, and Little Italy's and other ethnic neighborhoods where the customs and languages of the homelands are perpetuated and American customs (and even American language) is ignored.

And there can be little doubt, from the standpoint of history, that the drive for homogenaeity worked extremely well in Europe in the late 30's and 40's.

clambake

07-12-2006, 10:08 AM

Yonivore

07-12-2006, 10:12 AM

What happened to our soldiers is horrible. Everyone agrees. I don't want to see the video, thank you.

I don't want to see the video of our soldiers raping, killing the rape victim, and killing her whole family, and dragging them out of the house and setting them on fire either.
Okay your moral equivalence is appalling.

Who can tell me the difference between the two incidents clambake has just joined?

That's right class. The United States government is investigating and prosecuting the alleged criminals that perpetrated the crime against the Iraqi family. Al Qaeda is lauding the barbarous acts of their jihadis.

DarkReign

07-12-2006, 10:12 AM

Certainly that explains why most major American cities have Chinatowns, and Little Italy's and other ethnic neighborhoods where the customs and languages of the homelands are perpetuated and American customs (and even American language) is ignored.

And there can be little doubt, from the standpoint of history, that the drive for homogenaeity worked extremely well in Europe in the late 30's and 40's.

Hey, I have never heard or seen Little Italy or Chinatown blow each other up. Not the same.

Ask the British how the whole "let as many in as possible" thing is working for them.

clambake

07-12-2006, 10:15 AM

The only thing equal is both are barbaric acts, dipshit.

Yonivore

07-12-2006, 10:27 AM

The only thing equal is both are barbaric acts, dipshit.
So, why the reference to the alleged criminal acts of our soldiers? There are more than just two barbarous acts. Your statment, about not wanting to see the video of our mutilated soldiers, could have stood on its own.

Your inclusion of the jab about not wanting to see that video either, was clearly intended to draw a comparison between the two. Doing so, without acknowledging the different resolutions of each circumstances only intends to enflame and paint the picture that, just as al Qaeda condones barbarity, so does the U.S.

Asshole.

clambake

07-12-2006, 10:35 AM

I'm sorry my jab somehow effects you personally. I love when you speak of morals. Explain to me the difference in both these acts. On a moral level, on your moral level. Not the consequences, the acts. Not your beloved justice system that you wrap your head around, the acts.

DarkReign

07-12-2006, 10:36 AM

He is very careful not to piss off the resident moonbats too much or step on their toes.

He will poke fun at the nbadan's but will try to compensate by going after conservatives with an asshole left of Extra Stunt.

Maybe, just maybe I am not on either side, you twit.

Maybe I think for myself and take things as they come. I have explained this before. I am neither left nor right in the traditional sense.

gtownspur

07-12-2006, 02:26 PM

Where in that post did i say that you were a liberal or conservative?

smeagol

07-12-2006, 06:32 PM

Okay your moral equivalence is appalling.

Who can tell me the difference between the two incidents clambake has just joined?

That's right class. The United States government is investigating and prosecuting the alleged criminals that perpetrated the crime against the Iraqi family. Al Qaeda is lauding the barbarous acts of their jihadis.
Huh?

He was comparing the acts, not how governements deal with the acts. Actually he was not comparing the governemts, i.e. his comment is valid.

Actually, it would be interesting to see you criticize these soldiers the same way you criticize the terrorits (for heinous acts both parties have committed).

Yonivore

07-12-2006, 07:18 PM

Huh?

He was comparing the acts, not how governements deal with the acts. Actually he was not comparing the governemts, i.e. his comment is valid.

Actually, it would be interesting to see you criticize these soldiers the same way you criticize the terrorits (for heinous acts both parties have committed).
If guilty, the soldiers should be executed.

I don't understand his need to mention the case in explaining why he didn't want to watch the video. Why not say the Nicole Simpson murder?

smeagol

07-12-2006, 08:02 PM

If guilty, the soldiers should be executed.

I don't understand his need to mention the case in explaining why he didn't want to watch the video. Why not say the Nicole Simpson murder?
Because Nicole Simpson's murder had nothing to do with the war while the other two incidents are war related (the same war, mind you).

Yonivore

07-12-2006, 08:50 PM

Because Nicole Simpson's murder had nothing to do with the war while the other two incidents are war related (the same war, mind you).
Actually, the soldiers' alleged acts are a crime and not an act of war.

smeagol

07-12-2006, 08:53 PM

Actually, the soldiers' alleged acts are a crime and not an act of war.
Both acts were done by soldiers. The only difference is that the US soldiers perpetrated the act against civilians.

In my mind, they are both similar and have nothing to do with Nicole Simpson's murder.

You are beating a dead horse.