"Religion of Peace?"

[The Kilted Heathen]

Do you think Vikings are the modern day ISIS?

Vikings are irrelevant. You're Red Herring'ing again. The focus is you, your support of very xenophobic actions, and how you think sharia law would be applied.

Also the other points that you've blatantly ignored.

Focus.

 

[sovietchild]

Vikings are irrelevant. You're Red Herring'ing again. The focus is you, your support of very xenophobic actions, and how you think sharia law would be applied. Focus.

I have a feeling you are trying to defame me.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

You are doing that yourself. And what do you think it is whenever you bring up unrelated things? Vikings and snakes when the topic is things that YOU have said?

 

[sovietchild]

You are doing that yourself.

How can one say that I support xenophobic actions when one promotes xenophobic soldier in his signature?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

You're defaming. And since you're having trouble focusing on the issue, let me post it again for you.

Under sharia law non-muslims will be treaded like any other, in my view.

In your view? Or under sharia law? We already know that you support ISIS in their blatant disrespect of other cultures and religions, so how exactly would that treatment be?

Adultery breeds adultery.

Prove it.

WHO Study: Alcohol Is International Number One Killer, AIDS Second

A study from 2011? Get modern.

Sharia law will punish those who produce intoxications, unless its for medical uses.

So you're going to kill kids growing pot in their backyards. Got it.

 

[sovietchild]

You're defaming. And since you're having trouble focusing on the issue, let me post it again for you.

I don't think one needs to kill kids for growing pot in their backyard, but I do think one needs to punish those who does grow pot in their backyard.

A kingpin is a person who controls a sizable network of persons involved in the illegal drug trade. They will be executed first under sharia law.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Mmmhmm. And adultery? What proof do you have that it "breeds adultery"? What do you even define as adultery?

 

[ZooGirl02]

As with any religion, Islam has numerous different interpretations. Some of those interpretations are peaceful while other interpretations are not. Therefore, the question of whether or not Islam is a religion of peace is a difficult question to answer.

 

[Notanumber]

As with any religion, Islam has numerous different interpretations. Some of those interpretations are peaceful while other interpretations are not. Therefore, the question of whether or not Islam is a religion of peace is a difficult question to answer.

If someone went around saying, I love you but I am going to kill you, he would end up in prison.

His defence of okay I wanted to kill them but I did say I loved them would not stand up in court.

 

[sovietchild]

Mmmhmm. And adultery? What proof do you have that it "breeds adultery"? What do you even define as adultery?

By adultery I meant a husband cheats on his wive or other way around. Scandinavian countries always score highly on ratings which judge the happiness of its citizens, but it seems they also score highly when it comes to adultery.

 

[JustWondering]

Is Islam a "religion of peace" as Muslims and an increasing number of people would have us believe?

With the current ongoing atrocities being carried out on practically a daily basis the question is asked and answered in the affirmative by Muslims, politicians and the public alike. But who are these people who are given air-time on TV, radio and the public leftist largely controlled media?

Is there another version of Islam which is being suppressed and hidden from general public viewing?

Facebook has recently submitted to demands from Muslims who accuse non-Muslims of the charge of "blasphemy" to have comments removed and at the same time blocked an advert promoting a Christian film. So where are we going with all this?

“Your ad wasn’t approved because it doesn’t follow Facebook’s Advertising Guidelines for language that is profane, vulgar, threatening or generates high negative feedback,” Facebook reportedly wrote to producers of the film. “Ads can’t use language that insults, harasses or demeans people, or addresses their age, gender, name, race, physical condition or sexual preference.”

The top theme/goal of the Abrahamic religions is subjugation of the masses. So of course when members of these religions run into opposition to their beliefs the result will be bigotry, conflict, and violence. Pointing out Islam while ignoring Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, and other Abrahamic religions isn't fair. They all have the same problem. It would be nice if humanity could leave bronze age fables and mythology in the bronze age where it belongs but I'm not going to hold my breath on that one. Humanity is not a rational species.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I don't know. Are you capable of making posts that doesn't show your arrogance and rudeness?

Get defensive, it helps. And yes, I can. I already have. I've made a number of posts on this thread here and here. I don't think anyone has actually tried to address the points I've made.

People keep saying "lolz derp strawman!" so much around here, it's pretty much lost all meaning at this point. Kind of like the people who say "racist" when something is not racist.

Okay, since you obviously don't believe your claims are strawmen, I'll attempt to explain why I believe it is.

This thread is about Islam - as in the religious doctrine. While the OP mentions Muslims, he doesn't mention all Muslims, nor does he generalise, nor does he say 'they all think the same' AFAIK. Literally the only person doing that here is you. You're deliberately twisting arguments made about the intolerant aspects of Islamic doctrine to make this about Muslims. You're trying to shift the conversation to force us to focus on the person rather than the belief that person holds. I'm honestly not sure whether this is deliberate. The point is, you're addressing an argument that is not being made - you're making up your own narrative, acting as if we hold it, and knock it down. That is why your arguments against our generalising of Muslims is a strawman - we're not making any such generalisations.

What's worse is you're even telling people what they think. "You think that all Muslims think the same because they read the same book!" You even do it later in this post of yours that I'm responding to here.

Do you have anything to contribute? Or is your next post going to be like your other posts, which consists of "You're an idiot because I say so. lolz"

And which of my previous posts have actually said or implied that? I've been a bit sardonic but I've not gone out of my way to say those who disagree with me are stupid. I'd really appreciate it if you could stop putting words in my mouth.

If you disagree fine. I could care less

"Couldn't". 'Could' doesn't make sense; if you could care less then that means you still care to some degree. Presumably you're trying to establish that you don't care.

Say something of substance.

I have done so in multiple posts which you or any other of Islam's defenders have yet to address. Pointing out the OIC's attempts global blasphemy laws undermines the claim that some Muslims don't want to force Islamic law on others is of substance; asking why applying Islamic religious law against non-Muslims is just, is of substance; pointing out the fact that saying 'aspects of Islam like zakat makes Islam peaceful but things like capital punishment for apostasy, historical extortion of non-Muslims (jizyah), enslavement of non-Muslims, the destruction of non-Islamic religious structures etc doesn't make Islam a violent or intolerant faith' is applying a double-standard.

You clearly don't like my posts

We don't agree on this particular subject, that's all.

or believe in conspiracies

Anyone who refuses to learn about things like kinetic energy, mass & velocity while mindlessly chanting "9/11 was an inside job 'cause jet fuel can't melt steel beams" is not someone I'll be able to take seriously.

and seem to think all Muslims are the same,

How have you arrived at that conclusion? Literally none of my posts contain arguments along those lines; and you have my permission to quote any post I've ever made here on RF to disprove me.

so why reply to mine?

I feel the need to nip this misrepresentation thing you do squarely in the bud because I'm heartily sick of it. You ignore what people have said, tell them what they're arguing, then proceed to counter this argument that only you have produced. Again, the strawman thing.

Do you know what you're doing half the time?

Talking with someone who's either incapable or unwilling to counter the arguments presented in threads like this?

Do you honestly believe all Muslims think the same because they read the same book? Really?

See, this is what I mean. You claim that I believe "all Muslims think the same because they read the same book", then proceed to get all incredulous with me because, apparently, this is what I think. You know what? Time to stop this crap here. Let me make this very clear for you:

I am arguing against Islamic doctrine. I am not generalising or stereotyping Muslims individually or collectively. That is not my goal, that is not my intent. My main contention is with the intolerant aspects of Islamic belief that some people seem all too eager to ignore but I feel need to be addressed and acknowledged if Islam is to undergo any genuine kind of Enlightenment.

This is your one & final warning: I've made clear what I'm arguing against and why. You can no longer feign ignorance on the matter. If you continue to misrepresent my arguments as being Islamophobic, anti-Muslim or being aimed at Muslims then I will continually point out that you're lying because you will then be misrepresenting my arguments in the knowledge of why I'm actually making them.

Pointing out Islam while ignoring Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, and other Abrahamic religions isn't fair. They all have the same problem.

Just as pointing out problems with Christianity (which Mormonism is a sect of) and Judaism is unfair while giving Islam a free pass or, worse, accusing anyone who gives Islam similar treatment that the other two religions get is also unfair. Why is one okay but not the other? Christianity (rightly) comes in for a lot of criticism from some quarters of society who are more than willing to give Islam - with its similar history & doctrines which accommodate or even encourage intolerance towards outsiders - a free pass.

 

[Aberamentho]

Al-Baqarah, or 2:109

Many of the people of the Scripture [Jews, Christians] would love to turn you back after your having believed, into disbelievers, out of selfish envy, and after the truth (of this Qur'an) has become apparent to them. But pardon them and overlook until Allah shall make manifest His will, indeed Allah is Possesser of every power to do all He will.

Christian and Jewish intolerance of Islam is as old as Islam, they lost many who converted to Islam and saw that it was going to dominate Arabia if they didn't stop it, try though they did they ultimately failed and had to acknowledge the supremacy of Islam, but were not made to convert and ultimately had protected status, "Pardon them and overlook."

2:111. And they (Jews, Christians) say respectively about themselves, "None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian." These are there wishful beliefs. Say, "Bring forth your vivid proof (of what you claim about Paradise) if you are right."

It's common knowledge that Christians preach only "saved" Christians go to Heaven. Whatever that is, most cite vicarious atonement per accepting Christ as "Lord and Savior" but this is from Pauline theology only, Paul didn't know Jesus (pbwh). Jesus was more focused on the Kingdom of God and doing His will in order to gain eternal life in Heaven, not condemning everyone who merely disagreed with him. He rebuked certain Jews who were evil and it got him killed, they think so at least. He actually rose to Heaven alive so obviously didn't die. They treated Mohammed (saw) the same way and failed to assassinate him many times, collaborating with idolatrous Arabs and breaking terms of peace treaties treacherously.


And like the Judeans in Jesus (pbwh) day they were removed from power and even exiled in some cases, although the Muslims were far more just in their treatment in of Jews after they were removed from power in Arabia and let them live in peace after all was said and done. The Romans enslaved them by contrast and did many heinous things.

And like Jesus was slandered in the Talmud, which was completed before Islam so doesn't mention Mohammed (saw), he was slandered as ibn Ishaq reports by the Jews of Medina for killing 900 Jews, 150 years after his death they were spreading this lie that has no independent corroboration and wasn't reported as factual by Ishaq although it is certainly used as if he did. At least one contemporary author, a Malik, thought Ishaq an imposter, I think it's possible but also possible he felt duty bound to report, not as fact but that it was claimed, exactly what he was told, like Church Fathers did about lies told by the Jews about Jesus as early as Iraneus and Eusebius, which aren't used to misinform or treated as fact, typical double standard.

2:112. The truth of the matter is, whoever submits himself entirely to Allah and is a doer of good to others shall have his reward with his Lord. They shall have nothing to fear and nothing to grieve at.

This is saying, "You want to believe in exclusivity of one religion only in Heaven and exclude us, prove this is God's will.

And despite you excluding us, we will not do the same and everybody who is good can go to Paradise regardless of religion.

The Religion of Peace.

 

[Aberamentho]

2:113. The Jews say, "The Christians have no valid ground for their beliefs", while Christians assert, "The Jews have no valid ground for their belief [rejection of Jesus]", yet they both read the same Scripture (Tanakh). Exactly such things say those who have no knowledge. But Allah shall judge between them on the Day of Ressurection with regard to all that about which they argued.


While Jews rejected Jesus (pbwh) for not fulfilling their incorrect understanding of Messianic prophecy that demanded Judean supremacy through military conquest against Rome and in some cases world domination, this was not God's will. The Messiah was to be of a more Priestly and non-violent nature but also announced that "the sword" was coming. It did. They rejected this plan and fought to their own deaths.

Christians elevated Jesus (pbwh) to "God" and believed in the triunity of God, a senseless doctrine, idolatrous and polytheistic both.

So they both were wrong. Had they accepted Jesus (pbwh) as Messiah, Mohammed (saw) as God's Messenger, everyone would have one and been able to agree. Jesus isn't God but is the Messiah, Mohammed God's Messenger and God one God of all mankind, it might have worked.

But Muslims are happy as long as Islam exists and don't need to convert obsessively like Evangelists or persecute Jews for killing Christ (saw) because we have our own religion.

The Religion of Peace.

 

[J2hapydna]

This translation has been printed over 250 million times. I believe that this translation is the mostly widely printed of all the English translations.

The problem is, if you are not a Muslim you don't know what to look for. For example what did you understand from reading 28:48-50 and 3:199?

 

[icehorse]

The problem is, if you are not a Muslim you don't know what to look for. For example what did you understand from reading 28:48-50 and 3:199?

3:199 reads to me to be charitable and optimistic towards some Christians and Jews.
28:48-50 reads to me to be saying that Allah will be merciful to those who accept either the Torah or the Quran, if their attitude is correct.

So what? We can find other verses that say the opposite.

 

[Aberamentho]

Joshua 6:21 Destruction and taking of Jericho

"Then they devoted to destruction by the edge of the sword all in the city, men and women, young and old."

All on the way to the city of shalom, peace, Jerusalem.

The same was done at Ai, in an ambush (8:2) and "no on escaped or survived" (8:22). The King was "hung on a tree until evening" (8:29) which is kind of familiar involving another Joshua who was "hung on a tree until evening." Anyway.

This pretty much occurs everywhere until Canaan is reached. In Canaan even the animals are killed.

11:16 contains a summary but you get the picture.

According to the author, "God ordered all that Joshua did."

How peaceful. You will find war, but no such war crimes as these killings of women and children, in the Qur'an, only the sworn enemies of Islam who sought its destruction and soldiers only at that, men of fighting age.

 

[Aberamentho]

Under sharia law non-muslims will be treaded like any other, in my view.



Adultery breeds adultery.



WHO Study: Alcohol Is International Number One Killer, AIDS Second



Sharia law will punish those who produce intoxications, unless its for medical uses. Prophet Muhammad once said "Allah, the Exalted, has let no disease exist without providing for its cure, except for one ailment, namely, old age’.”

You do understand Sharia only applies to Muslims and Muslims don't desire to make it the law of the world, right?

Sharia is practiced everyday in America and everywhere there is Islam. It's not something that is coming but here, now, and no threat to anyone. It doesn't apply to anyone but Muslims and is protected by the Constitution.

 

[Aberamentho]

As with any religion, Islam has numerous different interpretations. Some of those interpretations are peaceful while other interpretations are not. Therefore, the question of whether or not Islam is a religion of peace is a difficult question to answer.

Can you name a respected Muslim scholar or a famous and respected example of tafsir that provides us with an example of non peaceful exegesis of the Qur'an?

How many books dedicated to Quranic exegesis (tafsir) have you read and by who?

Because otherwise you are assuming that it is a relatively common thing to interpret the Qur'an for the cause of violence which is hardly the case in any true Muslim sect as the Qur'an is a very tolerant book that discouages violence, even injuring a person, one person, unless you have no choice and afterwards you are supposed to make some kind of peace agreement.

You would have to literally distort, not interpret, the Qur'an to reach any kind of excuse for unprovoked aggression. That is very rare. And not Islam any longer.

 

[Aberamentho]

I have a feeling you are trying to defame me.

Possible, people are not all honorable.