Propaganda: Why it is necessary for Islam

[YmirGF]

Torment to Non-believers

56 Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise.

And what is the problem here? Are we suppose to reward wrong doing? Do you give money to a person after he robs a bank?

The problem? Doesn't the verse sound just a tiny bit sadistic? Punishing someone is one thing but subjecting them to relentless sadistic torture is quite another. Is this supposed to be the acceptable behaviour of a Wise being? In direct answer to your comparison, No, I would not give a bank robber a reward for robbing a bank. I would not subject him or her to endless torture for a few moments of stupidity and neither would I authorize that their hand be cut off. That is just a teensy weensy bit o'er the top.

Only Islam Acceptable

85 And whoso seeketh as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter.

86 How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their belief and (after) they bore witness that the messenger is true and after clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty) had come unto them. And Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
87 As for such, their guerdon is that on them rests the curse of Allah and of angels and of men combined.
88 They will abide therein. Their doom will not be lightened, neither will they be reprieved;
89 Save those who afterward repent and do right. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

What's wrong with this verse. When you go to the supermarket, do you not purchase the best of products? Do you go for the old and expired meats? Assuming you don't, why is it o.k. for you to recommend the best but not o.k. for others?

You think that comparing religions to packets of meat in a grocery store is a reasonable argument? Are you actually trying to be serious? Religions are not packages of meat with clear expiry dates. I hope this doesn't come as a revelation to you.

No friends with parents/siblings if not believers

Yes. The verse says to not be friends with the jews or christian. Now let me refer you to ch.60: 8,9. In it we are told not to disrespect those who have not fought against us.

By this logic then one can surmise that it is perfectly ok to disrespect anyone who has fought against Islam.

Therefore, if the jews or christians are not being aggressive towards us then we are to show them respect but not be their friends. A friend is one you love and put your faith and trust in. Why would a muslim befriend a person who disrespects their prophet and slander their religion. If a person slanders your mother publically, would you be their friend?

So, in effect, you cannot even be friends with non-Muslims, which puts you in a perpetual adversarial role. Are you not uncomfortable with bigotry being enshrined in your religion?

89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,

Are we not allowed to defend ourselves? So if a person tries to kill you and you defend yourself, are you in the wrong?

If your actions led to the provocation then it would not actually be self-defence. Islam represented a theological attack on Judaism and Christianity. His contemporaries laughed at Muhammad for years until he had gathered followers, then they could no longer write him off as a harmless madman. This self-defence argument does not wash because Islam represents a clear and present danger to Pagans, Christians and Jews. Did they not have a right to defend themselves against your founder's thinking? Would you simply sit back and say, "Oh, we have a small difference of opinion."

Anti Jew verses

82 Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe (to be) the Jews and the idolaters. And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: Lo! We are Christians. That is because there are among them priests and monks, and because they are not proud.

Exactly how is this anti-jew?

Well, it can hardly be described at proJewish, now, can it.

God a "plotter", deceiver

30 And when those who disbelieve plot against thee (O Muhammad) to wound thee fatally, or to kill thee or to drive thee forth; they plot, but Allah (also) plotteth; and Allah is the best of plotters.

The fact that the verse neither says God is a "plotter" or "deciever" is clear evidence of which one of us is actually doing the deceiving.

Perhaps I am not reading it correctly then. How 'bout these?

Verily, the hypocrites seek to deceive God,

but He deceives them; and when they rise up to pray, they rise up lazily to be seen of men, and do not remember God, except a few; wavering between the two, neither to these nor yet to those! but whomsoever God doth lead astray thou shall not find for him a way.

34 And verily Joseph brought you of old clear proofs, yet ye ceased not to be in doubt concerning what he brought you till, when he died, ye said: Allah will not send any messenger after him. Thus

Allah deceiveth him who is a prodigal, a doubter.

Forcing Christians and Jews to pay tax

29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low

What is wrong with this verse? Do you live in a country where you don't have to pay taxes?

I don't think that paying the taxes is really the issue here. I rather expect that some have difficulty with the idea of "tribute" and "being brought low". It's just a niggling point. Not only is a tax being extracted but only after the victim has been "brought low" or subdued and only then gives willingly to the conqueror. Forgive me, but it is somewhat strange language for a "religion of peace" to broadcast.

Smite the necks of unbelievers

What do you do when someone is in the act of killing you? Do you prefer giving them a hug?

Not at all, however, I can help but wonder why Muslims are never implored to try to understand what has caused their misfortune. There is no call to try to understand why they are being attacked. There is no suggestion of responsibility for the attacks even though at its inception Islam represented a distinct clear and present danger to both Christians and Jews.

Partial Believers go to hell too

Again I ask, is wrong doing supposed to be rewarded?

It is wrong because people should do something because they want to, not because they think that they will be rewarded for it. The whole idea creates this absurd notion of a brownie point system. It is doing the right thing, for the wrong reasons. Only people with no real morals would need to be offered a reward to do something that they should do out of the goodness of their heart. Is this a difficult concept? I'll give you some candy if you can defeat my reasoning here.


And here I grow bored of this charade.

 

[Father Heathen]

Here's an example of more propaganda against islam:

An example of muslim respect for other religions/cultures.

How can merely reporting an actual event that really happened be considered "propaganda"? Just own up to your stained hands.

 

[ProudMuslim]

But Musa and Isa are Muslims prophets, since when did Muslims become followers of Mohamed , that brings to mind terms like "Mohamedans"i thought that mohamed was returning Islam to the people .

Muslims are the followers of the Qur'an that was delivered by Muhammed (PBUH).

and how can you beleive in Judaism and Christianity ? Islam is the true religion of Adam , the "message of moses and jesus who were both Muslims was corrupted by jews and christians. the messages Musa and Isa brought were Islam surely?

We believe in the message of Moses and Jesus and all other prophets because we believe they all delievred the same message which is to worship the One God. But we also realize that each Prophet/Messenger delivered the message to differentl folk and in a different time and therefore the laws were not exactly the same.

 

[goldwing]

To say that Jesus was a Muslim is absurd and purely untrue. One can make any claim to support his argument, but if it is a lie, it discredits the one making the case.

 

[ProudMuslim]

If your actions led to the provocation then it would not actually be self-defence.

Explain what do you mean aby actions? Cause you seem to contradict yourself in the following statement:

Islam represented a theological attack on Judaism and Christianity. His contemporaries laughed at Muhammad for years until he had gathered followers, then they could no longer write him off as a harmless madman.

So you are saying because Islom's ideology represented an attack to Judaism and Christianity ideologies it was justified to carry war against the followers of Islam?

This self-defence argument does not wash because Islam represents a clear and present danger to Pagans, Christians and Jews.

Once again you are indicating that Pagans, Christians and Jews have the right to attack Islam because of its ideology? So if someone expressed an opinion that offended you, it is perfectly fine to kill that person?

Did they not have a right to defend themselves against your founder's thinking? Would you simply sit back and say, "Oh, we have a small difference of opinion."

I think that got to be the most pathetic excuse. Because in reality, it is a difference of opinion on God. Judaism and Christianity do not have an exclusive rights to define God, Prophets and other religious rituals just because they were founded earlier. This whole argument that Islam came later, it represented an attack on Judaism and Christianity doctrines and therefore deserved to be attacked or mummed is hollow.

Well, it can hardly be described at

proJewish, now, can it.

Except no one is claiming it is a pro Jewish. We are saying it is not anti-Jewish.

Not at all, however, I can help but wonder why Muslims are never implored to try to understand what has caused their misfortune.

There is no call to try to understand why they are being attacked. There is no suggestion of responsibility for the attacks even though at its inception Islam represented a distinct clear and present danger to both Christians and Jews.

You dont get it, do you? Muslims couldn't care less if some Jews or Christians think our belief represent a threat or danger to their ideologies. The notion that we should take responsibility for the aggression and persecution committed against us because we "worried" them is laughable. We will not apologise for our belief, we will not change our belief to make them feel less "threatened". If they have problem with my belief, tough luck. As long as i keep my distance and remain peaceful to them, they should accept the difference like it is.

It is wrong because people should do something because they want to, not because they think that they will be rewarded for it. The whole idea creates this absurd notion of a brownie point system. It is doing the right thing, for the wrong reasons. Only people with no real morals would need to be offered a reward to do something that they should do out of the goodness of their heart. Is this a difficult concept? I'll give you some candy if you can defeat my reasoning here.

It is called internal spiritual satisfaction, it is not like we recieve anything materialistic. Why would anyone be bothered at this concept! Does atheism makes this to a person?

 

[ProudMuslim]

To say that Jesus was a Muslim is absurd and purely untrue. One can make any claim to support his argument, but if it is a lie, it discredits the one making the case.

Didn't Jesus fully submitted to the will of God? Then yes he was a Muslim in that defintion.

 

[ProudMuslim]

Response: Yes. The verse says to not be friends with the jews or christian. Now let me refer you to ch.60: 8,9. In it we are told not to disrespect those who have not fought against us. Therefore, if the jews or christians are not being aggressive towards us then we are to show them respect but not be their friends. A friend is one you love and put your faith and trust in. Why would a muslim befriend a person who disrespects their prophet and slander their religion. If a person slanders your mother publically, would you be their friend?

I disagree with you on this point. I don't believe Islam forbids us from befriending non-Muslims as long as they respect our difference, "wali" here means guardian/protector not a friend. V

Islam promotes love, honor and respect between spouses in marriage, so if Islam allows Muslim men to marry Jews and Christians women, how can one say a man cannot befriend or love his wife?

Anyway that is my take on this point.

 

[Fatihah]

So are you saying that you see nothing wrong with they are saying?

Response: Not at all. Why would I?

 

[Fatihah]

But how about the Hadiths of Bukari,i have been told by Muslims that they are interchangable with the Sunnah,as regards the Taliban do they not base everything they do on Islam.

Response: What do you mean by interchangable with the sunnah? As for the Taliban, well many men who abuse their wives say that they love their wives. Does that mean that love is a bad idea?

 

[McBell]

Response: Not at all. Why would I?

Thank you.
That clears up quite a lot.






:run:

 

[Fatihah]

I am trying very hard to see the connection, but so far do not.
Why are you comparing a statement about inequality and subjegation to the work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr?
King fought for freedom not for the right to oppress.

Response: First we need to understand why you see the statement as inequality and subjugation. represents

Quote: YmirGF
And yes, we can clearly see who is being injust in their thinking. Well done, Fatihah, well done. Keep up the astonishingly good work.

Response: Thank you. And unto you the same.

 

[Fatihah]

It was'nt me who brought up the subject of the Taliban.There are i am told 1.5 billion Muslims in the world but they are not the same as i'm sure you know,Sunnis,Shi'ite etc and now Progressive British Muslims which is great and brave,but unfortunately over 600 million Muslims live in Islamic states that practice a medaeval sexist and cruel system of law that belongs in the bin along with the people who administer it.
If you consider every criticism of Islam as propaganda i will present to you enough facts pertaining to Human rights issues that would take you a year to read,just say the word.

Response: And with every human rights issue you post in connection with islam that islam doesn't condone, I will provide facts that show that it's propaganda and the roots of your facts in my rebuttle. You may proceed.

 

[YmirGF]

I do find it amusing that you didn't even address the first half of my lengthy post. Fascinating.

If your actions led to the provocation then it would not actually be self-defence. Islam represented a theological attack on Judaism and Christianity. His contemporaries laughed at Muhammad for years until he had gathered followers, then they could no longer write him off as a harmless madman. This self-defence argument does not wash because Islam represents a clear and present danger to Pagans, Christians and Jews. Did they not have a right to defend themselves against your founder's thinking? Would you simply sit back and say, "Oh, we have a small difference of opinion."

Explain what do you mean aby actions? Cause you seem to contradict yourself in the following statement:

Islam represented a theological attack on Judaism and Christianity. His contemporaries laughed at Muhammad for years until he had gathered followers, then they could no longer write him off as a harmless madman.

Actually ProudMuslim, there reason for the seeming contracdiction is that I was using Muslim logic to illustrate my point. Sorry that that point seemed to go over your head.

So you are saying because Islam's ideology represented an attack to Judaism and Christianity ideologies it was justified to carry war against the followers of Islam?

ProudMuslim, think of how heresy is dealt with in Islam. In essence, Islam takes a very dim view of heretical thinking and actively persecutes any who deviate from accepted doctrine. By the same token, to Christians and Jews, the words of Muhammad must have been quite unbelievable. Given the nature of the human animal and the era this occured in it isn't the slightest bit of a surprise that they would try to kill him. The simple fact that they didn't and simply ran him out of Mecca indicates that they did not put much stock in his potential to draw followers. They guessed wrong and by the time they realized their mistake war was the only reasonable alternative.

Once again you are indicating that Pagans, Christians and Jews have the right to attack Islam because of its ideology? So if someone expressed an opinion that offended you, it is perfectly fine to kill that person?

Wrong. You are using 21st century social values to gloss over the events of a 7th century society.

I think that got to be the most pathetic excuse.

Then why exactly is it ok for Muslims to do this? We currently have most of the Western world walking on eggshells lest we upset Muslims, as if Muslims were ticking time bombs waiting for any excuse to explode.

Because in reality, it is a difference of opinion on God. Judaism and Christianity do not have an exclusive rights to define God, Prophets and other religious rituals just because they were founded earlier. This whole argument that Islam came later, it represented an attack on Judaism and Christianity doctrines and therefore deserved to be attacked or mummed is hollow.

You might think so, but I expect you would. The point is that Islam stood various aspects of Christianity and Judaism on their collective ears and if that isn't a reason for Christians and Jews to be upset, fighting mad, at Muslims, I don't know what is. Islam was formed on the back of mythologies that Muslims were not even a part of and Muhammed simply grandfathered Islam into the mix, rewriting age old tales to suit his purposes and you wonder why non-Muslims don't take Muslims seriously? It's a bit beyond a mere difference of opinion.

Except no one is claiming it is a pro Jewish. We are saying it is not anti-Jewish.

I see. It simply cast Jews in a very unfavorable light and still somehow manages to NOT be anti-Jewish. Pray tell, what, in your terms WOULD be an anti-Jewish statement?

You dont get it, do you? Muslims couldn't care less if some Jews or Christians think our belief represent a threat or danger to their ideologies.

Oh, trust me, ProudMuslim, that much is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR.

The notion that we should take responsibility for the aggression and persecution committed against us because we "worried" them is laughable.

Except Christians and Jews are not laughing and is possibly central to WHY Muslims do not command the respect their "holy" book says they are entitled to.

We will not apologise for our belief, we will not change our belief to make them feel less "threatened". If they have problem with my belief, tough luck. As long as i keep my distance and remain peaceful to them, they should accept the difference like it is.

Well perhaps if Islam was an original religion instead of one mutated off the backs of two other well established religions there may never have been any problems.

It is called internal spiritual satisfaction, it is not like we recieve anything materialistic. Why would anyone be bothered at this concept!

If you cannot understand the childlike psychology enshrined in such thinking then I don't know what to say. It is an ideology that can only appeal to the most base thinking, in my opinion, spiritual candy or otherwise.

Does atheism makes this to a person?

No, no one promises them a rose garden. They have to make them for themselves.

 

[Fatihah]

Torment to Non-believers
The problem? Doesn't the verse sound just a tiny bit sadistic? Punishing someone is one thing but subjecting them to relentless sadistic torture is quite another. Is this supposed to be the acceptable behaviour of a Wise being? In direct answer to your comparison, No, I would not give a bank robber a reward for robbing a bank. I would not subject him or her to endless torture for a few moments of stupidity and neither would I authorize that their hand be cut off. That is just a teensy weensy bit o'er the top.

Response: The punishment is not sadistic at all. A person who refuses to give respect to the one who gave them life deserves whatever punishment their creator gives them.
Quote: YmirGF
Only Islam Acceptable

You think that comparing religions to packets of meat in a grocery store is a reasonable argument? Are you actually trying to be serious? Religions are not packages of meat with clear expiry dates. I hope this doesn't come as a revelation to you.

Response: The fact that you couldn't come up with a logical rebuttle is evidence enough that the argument was reasonable.
No friends with parents/siblings if not believers

By this logic then one can surmise that it is perfectly ok to disrespect anyone who has fought against Islam.

Response: Point being?

Quote: YmirGF
So, in effect, you cannot even be friends with non-Muslims, which puts you in a perpetual adversarial role. Are you not uncomfortable with bigotry being enshrined in your religion?

Response: Not at all
Quote: YmirGF

If your actions led to the provocation then it would not actually be self-defence. Islam represented a theological attack on Judaism and Christianity. His contemporaries laughed at Muhammad for years until he had gathered followers, then they could no longer write him off as a harmless madman. This self-defence argument does not wash because Islam represents a clear and present danger to Pagans, Christians and Jews. Did they not have a right to defend themselves against your founder's thinking? Would you simply sit back and say, "Oh, we have a small difference of opinion."

Response: I'm reading statements. Where's the proof?

Quote: YmirGF
Anti Jew verses



Well, it can hardly be described at proJewish, now, can it.

Response: What does that have to do with the verse allegedly being anti-jewish?

Quote: YmirGF
God a "plotter", deceiver


Perhaps I am not reading it correctly then. How 'bout these?




Response: Again, more distortion. Neither of the verses you've quoted say that Allah is deceiving anyone. It is the hypocrites and disbelievers trying to deceive. Why try to distort the verse?

Quote: YmirGF
Forcing Christians and Jews to pay tax



I don't think that paying the taxes is really the issue here. I rather expect that some have difficulty with the idea of "tribute" and "being brought low". It's just a niggling point. Not only is a tax being extracted but only after the victim has been "brought low" or subdued and only then gives willingly to the conqueror. Forgive me, but it is somewhat strange language for a "religion of peace" to broadcast.

Response: How so?
Quote: YmirGF
Smite the necks of unbelievers

Not at all, however, I can help but wonder why Muslims are never implored to try to understand what has caused their misfortune. There is no call to try to understand why they are being attacked. There is no suggestion of responsibility for the attacks even though at its inception Islam represented a distinct clear and present danger to both Christians and Jews.

Response: More statements. Where's the proof?

Quote: YmirGF
Partial Believers go to hell too

It is wrong because people should do something because they want to, not because they think that they will be rewarded for it. The whole idea creates this absurd notion of a brownie point system. It is doing the right thing, for the wrong reasons. Only people with no real morals would need to be offered a reward to do something that they should do out of the goodness of their heart. Is this a difficult concept? I'll give you some candy if you can defeat my reasoning here.

Response: No where in the verse does it say to do good for a reward so your point is rather pointless.

Quote: YmirGF
And here I grow bored of this charade.

Response: Distorting verses won't help the situation either.

 

[Fatihah]

I disagree with you on this point. I don't believe Islam forbids us from befriending non-Muslims as long as they respect our difference, "wali" here means guardian/protector not a friend. V

Islam promotes love, honor and respect between spouses in marriage, so if Islam allows Muslim men to marry Jews and Christians women, how can one say a man cannot befriend or love his wife?

Anyway that is my take on this point.

Response: The word "wali" has several definitions and "friend" is one of them. Even if we use the word "guardian/protector", then now we must know the logic as to why Allah would say that muslims can have jews and christians as friends but not as guardians. What would be the reasonable explaination?

As for marrying jews and christians, the marriage is legal due to the fact that the jew or christian agrees to embrace islam and become muslims themselves.

 

[Fatihah]

How can merely reporting an actual event that really happened be considered "propaganda"? Just own up to your stained hands.

Response: Exactly what was the purpose of mentioning it? Your own answer to this question will give you the answer.

 

[Alla Prima]

Response: Martin Luther King JR used to "fight" for the rights of African Americans. So according to your logic, even he was a bad man. One can clearly see which of us is injust in their thinking.

You're dodging. Address the verse.

 

[Fatihah]

I do find it amusing that you didn't even address the first half of my lengthy post. Fascinating.

Response: I respond to post in the order that I see them.

 

[Alla Prima]

Response: Exactly what is the issue? You've quoted some hadiths but you don't state what your issue is with them.

Any religion or ideology that advocates murdering it's members who freely choose to leave it is evil. That you see nothing wrong with what these verses are saying tells me that you support evil and probably are in fact an evil person.

 

[kai]

Muslims are the followers of the Qur'an that was delivered by Muhammed (PBUH).

Thats what i thought

We believe in the message of Moses and Jesus and all other prophets because we believe they all delievred the same message which is to worship the One God. But we also realize that each Prophet/Messenger delivered the message to differentl folk and in a different time and therefore the laws were not exactly the same.

Noe you sound like Bahai, I thought it was the same message "Islam" but was corrupted ?