Nothing to do with Islam?

[icehorse]

The above does not answer my question. I asked you " where do you base this Islamic fatwa(verdict) on?"

You gave an Islamic ruling by saying.

" I will say that the Islamic definition of "defense" is very different from the common western definition. In Islam, if a non-believer resists being converted, that non-violent resistance can be viewed as "an attack" on Islam which can then be dealt with violently. So for example, when a cartoonist draws a picture of Muhammad, that is considered an attack on Islam, and any violence Muslims commit in response to the cartoon is considered "defensive".

If you want to give an Islamic verdict you need to show us that it's an official ruling on a point of Islamic law given by a recognized authority.
You basically gave us an islamic verdict based on your opinion and made it out to be an Islamic definition..this is simply misleading.

I disagree. I think I'm on solid ground using the behaviors of Muslims as my evidence.

Further, there is no such thing as a "recognized authority" in the Muslims world. Certain individuals have some power, but their authority is by no means recognized by the majority. In all such cases, an individual Muslim's authority is limited to some small slice of the larger group.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't have problem if you want to criticize Islam but when defending other religious books
when compared to Islam then that makes me comfortable to hear it from an atheist.

Is that so?

That sounds quite arbitrary and unnecessary. Why would that bother you?

I have no problem criticizing true religions. It just turns out that, popular misconceptions aside, Islaam falls way short of being one and receives a lot less criticism than I have learned it to deserve.

As for me being an atheist, so what?

 

[FearGod]

The above does not answer my question. I asked you " where do you base this Islamic fatwa(verdict) on?"

You gave an Islamic ruling by saying.

" I will say that the Islamic definition of "defense" is very different from the common western definition. In Islam, if a non-believer resists being converted, that non-violent resistance can be viewed as "an attack" on Islam which can then be dealt with violently. So for example, when a cartoonist draws a picture of Muhammad, that is considered an attack on Islam, and any violence Muslims commit in response to the cartoon is considered "defensive".

If you want to give an Islamic verdict you need to show us that it's an official ruling on a point of Islamic law given by a recognized authority.
You basically gave us an islamic verdict based on your opinion and made it out to be an Islamic definition..this is simply misleading.

Actually I don't think they have any opinion, only copy and paste mindlessly.

 

[icehorse]

Show us a claim by claim to see how dangerous it's, don't direct us to a website.
put the verse that you see it dangerous which makes you uncomfortable?

Muslims claim that the Quran is the final word of god. They claim that no other later revelations can be valid. That is an extremely dangerous claim. That absolutely sets up eternal conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims. We have 1400 years of bloody history to support the idea that such a claim of "finality" is dangerous.

 

[LuisDantas]

Muslims claim that the Quran is the final word of god. They claim that no other later revelations can be valid. That is an extremely dangerous claim. That absolutely sets up eternal conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims. We have 1400 years of bloody history to support the idea that such a claim of "finality" is dangerous.

Quite so!

 

[sayak83]

Who exactly says so, among Muslims?

Sakeenah here will agree. I live in India and meet many Muslims. None of them support any kind of death threats over Muhammad cartoons. Same sentiment among Bangladeshis I have talked to.

 

[FearGod]

Muslims claim that the Quran is the final word of god. They claim that no other later revelations can be valid. That is an extremely dangerous claim. That absolutely sets up eternal conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims. We have 1400 years of bloody history to support the idea that such a claim of "finality" is dangerous.

Why you see it dangerous if Muslims believe Islam is the right religion?
it doesn't mean you should believe the same.

 

[sayak83]

Muslims claim that the Quran is the final word of god. They claim that no other later revelations can be valid. That is an extremely dangerous claim. That absolutely sets up eternal conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims. We have 1400 years of bloody history to support the idea that such a claim of "finality" is dangerous.

Jesus isn't the final incarnate revelation of God?? Finality is all over Christianity as well.

 

[Sakeenah]

I disagree. I think I'm on solid ground using the behaviors of Muslims as my evidence.

Further, there is no such thing as a "recognized authority" in the Muslims world. Certain individuals have some power, but their authority is by no means recognized by the majority. In all such cases, an individual Muslim's authority is limited to some small slice of the larger group.

I have to disagree with you here, you are not on solid ground. Islamic definitions are simply not based on behaviour. In general, when you talk about definitions you look at what experts in that particular field have to say.
I have no issue with you stating the actual Islamic definition and than sharing your opinon.

It would be unfair of me to give you a definition of Atheism or any other set of ideas based on behaviour that I have observed from that particular group.And than claim that this is an actual definition within that religion.

Again you are incorrect, there is such a thing as recognized authority. I'll try to explain that( if you're interested) in a different post because it will be detailed.

Edit : But first I have to wage Jihad on my dishes.

 

[LuisDantas]

Actually I don't think they have any opinion, only copy and paste mindlessly.

You have no idea of how deeply wrong you are.

 

[sayak83]

I'm basing this on Islamic history, on the behaviors of conquering Muslims over the last 1400 years. And it's not just historical behavior, it's still happening. So we have your opinion up against 1400 years of evidence. I'm sure that you - personally - are sincere, but the ideology has guided Muslims differently for a long time now.

You must be seriously misguided if you think Christian conquests (of the new world, Africa, Australia) have been less worse than that of Muslims.

 

[icehorse]

You must be seriously misguided if you think Christian conquests (of the new world, Africa, Australia) have been less worse than that of Muslims.

I would request that you not put words in my mouth. But since you brought it up, I think both religions have extremely bloody histories to answer for.

 

[sayak83]

This feels a little like a "LMGTFY" request, but here's a nice handy summary of 109 verses in he Quran that speak of war with non-believers:

The Quran's Verses of Violence

Here are quotes from Quran that directly addresses when war is justified against unbelievers and when not. What say you to this? Isn't a "so called jihadi" going against Quran when they attack peaceful civilians?

74Let those of you who are willing to trade the
life of this world for the life to come, fight in God’s way. To anyone
who fights in God’s way, whether killed or victorious, We shall give a
great reward. 75 Why should you not fight in God’s cause and for
those oppressed men, women, and children who cry out, ‘Lord,
rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors! By Your
grace, give us a protector and give us a helper!’?

89They would dearly like you to reject faith, as they themselves have done, to
be like them. So do not take them as allies until they migrate [to
Medina] for God’s cause. If they turn [on you],a then seize and kill
them wherever you encounter them.b Take none of them as an ally or
supporter. 90 But as for those who seek refuge with people with whom
you have a treaty, or who come over to you because their hearts shrink
from fighting against you or against their own people, God could
have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So
if they withdraw and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God
gives you no way against them. 91You will find others who wish to be
safe from you, and from their own people, but whenever they are back
in a situation where they are tempted [to fight you], they succumb to
it. So if they neither withdraw, nor offer you peace, nor restrain
themselves from fighting you, seize and kill them wherever you
encounter them: We give you clear authority against such people.


In all these cases I see the Quran enunciate a policy of restrained rule bound war as a response to direct attack from other groups, or on behalf of people who are being oppressed in a violent manner. Most law abiding responsible countries agree to such norms. No first attack, fighting for self defense only when no peace treaty is possible, and intervention in case of humanitarian crisis.

Where's the problem?

 

[icehorse]

I have to disagree with you here, you are not on solid ground. Islamic definitions are simply not based on behaviour. In general, when you talk about definitions you look at what experts in that particular field have to say.
I have no issue with you stating the actual Islamic definition and than sharing your opinon.

I don't care what "Islamic experts" say. They don't agree with each other, and it often doesn't translate to what happens in real life. I care only about outcomes in the world, not some random Imam's hypothetical interpretations.

 

[icehorse]

Here are quotes from Quran that directly addresses when war is justified against unbelievers and when not. What say you to this? Isn't a "so called jihadi" going against Quran when they attack peaceful civilians?

74Let those of you who are willing to trade the
life of this world for the life to come, fight in God’s way. To anyone
who fights in God’s way, whether killed or victorious, We shall give a
great reward. 75 Why should you not fight in God’s cause and for
those oppressed men, women, and children who cry out, ‘Lord,
rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors! By Your
grace, give us a protector and give us a helper!’?

89They would dearly like you to reject faith, as they themselves have done, to
be like them. So do not take them as allies until they migrate [to
Medina] for God’s cause. If they turn [on you],a then seize and kill
them wherever you encounter them.b Take none of them as an ally or
supporter. 90 But as for those who seek refuge with people with whom
you have a treaty, or who come over to you because their hearts shrink
from fighting against you or against their own people, God could
have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So
if they withdraw and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God
gives you no way against them. 91You will find others who wish to be
safe from you, and from their own people, but whenever they are back
in a situation where they are tempted [to fight you], they succumb to
it. So if they neither withdraw, nor offer you peace, nor restrain
themselves from fighting you, seize and kill them wherever you
encounter them: We give you clear authority against such people.


In all these cases I see the Quran enunciate a policy of restrained rule bound war as a response to direct attack from other groups, or on behalf of people who are being oppressed in a violent manner. Most law abiding responsible countries agree to such norms. No first attack, fighting for self defense only when no peace treaty is possible, and intervention in case of humanitarian crisis.

Where's the problem?

For the sake of discussion, let's say that those two examples are okay. How about the other 107 examples I gave you?

 

[sayak83]

I would request that you not put words in my mouth. But since you brought it up, I think both religions have extremely bloody histories to answer for.

I was discussing Christianity with Islam with you. I am continuing on that vein.

 

[sayak83]

I would request that you not put words in my mouth. But since you brought it up, I think both religions have extremely bloody histories to answer for.

I was discussing Christianity with Islam with you. I am continuing on that vein.

 

[icehorse]

Edit : But first I have to wage Jihad on my dishes.

I love it, thanks!

 

[icehorse]

I was discussing Christianity with Islam with you. I am continuing on that vein.

Not with me, but it's okay, I'm happy to have answered.

 

[sayak83]

For the sake of discussion, let's say that those two examples are okay. How about the other 107 examples I gave you?

I will continue on of course.

By the way I have covered the first 10 quoted verses already that were from chap 2 and chap 4.