"Religion of Peace?"

[Aberamentho]

What do you mean, "How do I know?" It's right there in there Quran. Whether a Muslim actually follows that, it's up to them. But there are multiple quotes that say it's forbidden.

"There shall be no compulsion in the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing." [2:256]"

I remember answering this for you last night, haven't heard back from whoever was dumb enough to claim you were assuming, I gave the same quote too.

This forum has a LOT of nitwits.

 

[JustWondering]

Read the OP to see what this thread is about.

I did, and then I pointed out, rightfully, that all the Abrahamic religions have the same problem. Christianity is no more peaceful the Islam. Christians are no more or less peaceful than Muslims. I do not share your Islamophobia. You're not going to impress me by smearing Muslims while ignoring that Christians are responsible for far more hate and bloodshed.

 

[Aberamentho]

The way you have phrased your statement it suggests that the followers of these peaceful scholars are not following Islam and that only followers of the Umayyad scholars are following Islam. In other words you seem to be collaborating with ISIS. Do you realize this?

You say you concede, but you actually don't

Are you an idiot? Telling someone they "seem to be collaborating with IS"?

Followers of the Umayyad is equivalent to collaborating with IS?

Dumbest thing ever said ever. Ever.

IS is a creation of the West and Mossad, not Islam, Shia or Sunni.

People just believe what the tv tells them, don't bother to think about anything, just accept it.

Most people. Not all of us are stupid.

 

[Aberamentho]

I did, and then I pointed out, rightfully, that all the Abrahamic religions have the same problem. Christianity is no more peaceful the Islam. Christians are no more or less peaceful than Muslims. I do not share your Islamophobia. You're not going to impress me by smearing Muslims while ignoring that Christians are responsible for far more hate and bloodshed.

I did, and then I pointed out, rightfully, that all the Abrahamic religions have the same problem. Christianity is no more peaceful the Islam. Christians are no more or less peaceful than Muslims. I do not share your Islamophobia. You're not going to impress me by smearing Muslims while ignoring that Christians are responsible for far more hate and bloodshed.

You DO impress ME.

I am a Muslim so appreciate it!

 

[Aberamentho]

What is there to that? Sharia is an explicitly Muslim law.

I realize that Muslim communities will (IMO foolishly) often call for its implementation, but hopefully it will be in vain.

Did it gain any ground somewhere in Europe or America in the last few decades? How and where?

It never lost ground to need to gain it.

Ever since Islam arrived in the West it has brought Sharia with it, nothing has changed nor needs to.

If a country has freedom of religion it can't stop Muslims from living according to Sharia, unless they break a law not protected by freedom of religion in doing so, which is extremely rare.

It's just fear mongering because white Westerners fear the loss of a white Christian majority.

 

[LuisDantas]

Islam doesn't desire to enforce Muslim codes of conduct on non Muslims period.

How does your statement relate to the concept of Dhimmi / Dhimmitude, if at all?

Islam is, WITH SHARIA, for the hundredth time, protected by the US Constitution and already is practiced wherever Islam is including Europe and America.

What is that supposed to mean?

Whoever told you that Muslim Sharia was ever meant for non Muslims they lied to you, it has nothing to do with anyone who isn't a Muslim.

Why are you misrepresenting what I said?

It's that freaking simple.

If it is simple, than it would appear that most Muslims are willing to lie or at least mislead about it for some reason.

 

[LuisDantas]

You should seriously take your own advice and stop telling people who just are not as ignorant as you that they need a "reality check."

ISIS are not true Muslims, they are a creation of the enemies of Islam and their goal is to incite the world against it, not take it over.

You need the reality check, probably think LHO killed JFK and believe every word of the Warren report too I bet.

Probably accept all "official stories" spoon fed to so many sheep, 9/11 you probably still think was done by Al Quaeda.

Come back to me when you have decided to deserve attention, will you?

 

[Augustus]

Just some information from the introduction to my Qur'an.

Writes H.G. Wells, "And with a fresh vigor it (the Arab mind) took up that systematic development of positive knowledge which the Greeks had begun and relinquished. If the Greek was the father, the Arab was the foster-father of the scientific method of dealing with reality. Through the Arabs it was, and not by the Latin route that the modern world and received that gift of Light and Power." (The Outline of History, London, pg. 192)

Further, according to Dr. J.W. Draper, author of "The Intellectual Development of Europe"

"One of the most deplorable things in history is the SYSTEMATIC way in which European writers have contrived to put out of sight their SCIENTIFIC OBLIGATION TO THE ARABS."

The Europeans can also thank the Muslims for repeatedly attacking the Byzantine Empire eventually leading to its decline and the movement of many scholars (and their Greek texts) to Western Europe.

The Abbasid Golden age did lead to many advances though, no doubt (mostly non-Arab Muslims, and there were also some contributions from non-Muslims) and served as a link in the chain of scientific knowledge.

This is referring to, as anyone who has read the Ante Nicene Church Fathers writings, the vehement ridicule of Greek philosophy, culture, science and all thing not Christian.

You are cherry picking. Yes there was Christian opposition to certain philosophical ideas, but the Church (via monasteries) basically kept Greek philosophy alive in Western Europe and was responsible for translating much of it into Latin.

By the end of the 'Dark Ages', there were advances in certain aspects of science that exceeded those of the Muslim world and helped set the foundations for modern science.

This embarrassment and jealousy is the motivation behind the Crusades, a mission to plunder wealth and knowledge, knowledge the Arabs were willing to teach and had made gifts of to the Europeans before.

The Crusades were 0% about 'plundering knowledge' and very little about plundering wealth. Most participants had to sell their birthright to go on the Crusades and would have been much wealthier staying at home doing nothing. The Church took on a lucrative sideline in helping people liquidate their assets so they could afford to go on Crusade (armour was very expensive, multiple horses were needed, a retinue of several people went with every knight, provisions, etc.)

The crusades were religiously motivated, regarding taking the holy lands back from what they considered as Pagan usurpers. Certain social/religious conditions in Europe leading up to this point (eschatological concerns, conflict betwen the Pope and the Emporer, etc) helped drive the desire to liberate (from their perspective) what was rightfully theirs.

 

[Aberamentho]

Translation of Quran by Mohsin Khan and Taqi Al-Hilali - Surah (Chapter) 3. Aali Imraan

How does it read differently? Here are the two translations you have read?

Muhsin Khan:
And there are, certainly, among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), those who believe in Allah and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before Allah. They do not sell the Verses of Allah for a little price, for them is a reward with their Lord. Surely, Allah is Swift in account

Hilali:
And there are, certainly, among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), those who believe in Allah and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before Allah. They do not sell the Verses of Allah for a little price, for them is a reward with their Lord. Surely, Allah is Swift in account.

So please explain this verse

I agree the Quran can be understood both as a peaceful text and as an extremist one.

If taken out of context maybe it can seem extremist to a non Muslim but that is MISunderstanding, not understood properly.

In context it is everything but extremist. The Old Testament is very disturbing when read IN CONTEXT so is purposely read OUT of context.

The opposite is true with the Qur'an.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

IS is a creation of the West and Mossad, not Islam, Shia or Sunni.

When in doubt about a problem in the Muslim world, blame Israel and everyone else. Just don't blame the Muslim world or Islam for supplying Islamic State's ideology or anything...

 

[Aberamentho]

The Europeans can also thank the Muslims for repeatedly attacking the Byzantine Empire eventually leading to its decline and the movement of many scholars (and their Greek texts) to Western Europe.

The Abbasid Golden age did lead to many advances though, no doubt (mostly non-Arab Muslims, and there were also some contributions from non-Muslims) and served as a link in the chain of scientific knowledge.




You are cherry picking. Yes there was Christian opposition to certain philosophical ideas, but the Church (via monasteries) basically kept Greek philosophy alive in Western Europe and was responsible for translating much of it into Latin.

By the end of the 'Dark Ages', there were advances in certain aspects of science that exceeded those of the Muslim world and helped set the foundations for modern science.




The Crusades were 0% about 'plundering knowledge' and very little about plundering wealth. Most participants had to sell their birthright to go on the Crusades and would have been much wealthier staying at home doing nothing. The Church took on a lucrative sideline in helping people liquidate their assets so they could afford to go on Crusade (armour was very expensive, multiple horses were needed, a retinue of several people went with every knight, provisions, etc.)

The crusades were religiously motivated, regarding taking the holy lands back from what they considered as Pagan usurpers.

Actually Europe was destitute and the Muslim world fabulously wealthy, religion had nothing to do with it and money everything. Your version of events is plain and simply a lie and nobody who knows history would ever say it.

Not like it ACTUALLY justifies genocide/ethnic cleansing.

Certain social/religious conditions in Europe leading up to this point (eschatological concerns, conflict betwen the Pope and the Emporer, etc) helped drive the desire to liberate (from their perspective) what was rightfully theirs.

Social conditions like poverty due to oppression, lack of education and jealousy of the wealthy Muslim world.

Cherry picking is the cheap shot of poor debaters, I didn't cherry pick anything I replied with what was relevant to the conversation.

Byzantium destroyed itself by constantly warring with Parthians, by the time Islam controlled it there wasn't really anyone to fight.

And by that time Persia was mostly Muslim and united, and I think you are talking out of your ***.

Not saying they never fought, but that you're exaggerating in the extreme.

Nothing comes close to the horror of the Crusades, if trying to obscure that travesty in the name of Christ, not even close did you come to doing so by mentioning the fallen Byzantine Empire.

Not even close.
War is war.

Genocide (the Crusades) and ethnic cleansing, another

 

[Aberamentho]

Come back to me when you have decided to deserve attention, will you?

Oh I am sorry, was I supposed to do what you want?

Sorry if you think that because I don't share your extremist world view that I don't deserve your attention.

I never asked for it or wanted it in the first place so you go and come back when you realize I am just not as gullible as you. Oh and that you are just gullible.

The other alternative is the bs you see on tv seems to justify your pre-existing hatred of Islam.

Sorry but IS has nothing to do with Islam unless you choose to believe it does.

Since it doesn't practice the teachings of Islam and is trying everything to destroy it, they can't be considered Muslims.

Truthfully, they could be western mercenaries, MI6, Mossad, and you would never know.

You put a lot of trust in a government known for lying so they can invade foreign nations, attacks itself and blames it on Al Qaeda, a Bush family ally as was bin Laden.

 

[J2hapydna]

Are you an idiot? Telling someone they "seem to be collaborating with IS"?

Followers of the Umayyad is equivalent to collaborating with IS?

Dumbest thing ever said ever. Ever.

IS is a creation of the West and Mossad, not Islam, Shia or Sunni.

People just believe what the tv tells them, don't bother to think about anything, just accept it.

Most people. Not all of us are stupid.

I notice that you appear to be extremely emotional and angry in your posts. Was it some childhood trauma that set you off? in any case, I sense extremist tendencies in your posts so have avoided debating you. Everything seems so black and white to you. I'm not sure what you think you will achieve by calling me an idiot and dumb etc. I am guessing you are now skating on thin ice and it will not be long before you are sent packing for insulting others on these boards.

If you are so smart then explain what exactly 3:199 and 28:48-50 are describing? Then we can find out how rational intelligent and grounded you are.

 

[Aberamentho]

Read your quotation carefully. Your exegesis fails. It has nothing to do with compelling one to follow the "true faith". It says that the right way is so obvious that you should believe the truth as opposed to error without any compulsion. It says nothing about what will happen if you choose to not believe the obvious.

I have spent a lot of time and study to understand the history and beliefs of islam, I know quite a bit about both issues. Your quotation helps in showing you don't fully grasp what you read. Hope this helps

You are trying to make it mean what you want it to, I told you what it actually does mean.

You just are either dishonest or semi-literate and a terrible exegete.

"There is no compulsion of any sort in religion" and what follows is as clear as day in that it is talking about not forcing people to practice religion if they don't want.

How you could twist the meaning and question my exegesis, which is not even required for such a clear meaning verse as this, is a mystery.

 

[Aberamentho]

2:256

There is no compulsion of any sort in religion as the right way...

The "right way" as in non compulsory religion.

...does stand obviously distinguished from the wrong way of error.

The wrong way of error is NOT referring to every other religion but Islam, it is talking about the right way to practice Islam, that forced conversions (like Catholicism) and compulsion are not it.

I know this because the Qur'an is clear that Christian, Jew, Sabaean, Magian, etc, ALL are subject to God's Judgement and not based on religious affiliation.

Meaning everyone can go to Heaven.

And that Shmogie doesn't know how read the Qur'an.

 

[Aberamentho]

I notice that you appear to be extremely emotional and angry in your posts. Was it some childhood trauma that set you off? in any case, I sense extremist tendencies in your posts so have avoided debating you. Everything seems so black and white to you. I'm not sure what you think you will achieve by calling me an idiot and dumb etc. I am guessing you are now skating on thin ice when they insult others like this on these boards.

If you are so smart then explain what exactly are 3:199 and 28:48-50 are describing? Then we find out how rational intelligent and grounded you are.

What makes you think I am angry?

I probably didn't mean to call you an idiot, I have never had a problem with you before.

I will look into it. Could be miscommunication or you said something idiotic, I will get back to you.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Byzantium destroyed itself by constantly warring with Parthians, by the time Islam controlled it there wasn't really anyone to fight.

Are you actually blaming the Byzantines for the Muslims attacking the Byzantine Empire? The Byzantine Empire weakened itself by continually fighting Sassanid Persia. The constant aggression from its Muslim & Christian neighbours over the next half-century or so finished it off.

2:256

There is no compulsion of any sort in religion as the right way...

The "right way" as in non compulsory religion.

...does stand obviously distinguished from the wrong way of error.

The wrong way of error is NOT referring to every other religion but Islam, it is talking about the right way to practice Islam, that forced conversions (like Catholicism) and compulsion are not it.

I know this because the Qur'an is clear that Christian, Jew, Sabaean, Magian, etc, ALL are subject to God's Judgement and not based on religious affiliation.

Meaning everyone can go to Heaven.

And that Shmogie doesn't know how read the Qur'an.

So can you explain why non-Muslim minorities like the Yazidis in Iraq and the Kalash of Pakistan have been forcibly converted to Islam, having their own religious structures destroyed and their cultures overwritten? Clearly forced conversion is a part of how Islam spreads, as distasteful as it might be to your sensibilities.

 

[Nakosis]

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

Maybe you ought to ask that question of the Sunni and the Shiite? How has the religion of peace worked out for them?

Peace through conquest? If you rule the world and can enforce your laws, morals. Life can be relativity peaceful. Peace only comes via enforcement. Peace is only possible through the threat of violence.

Ok, Islam is a religion of peace, I don't know that this means anything important. The US is a nation of peace as long as you do exactly what the US tells you to do.

 

[Aberamentho]

I notice that you appear to be extremely emotional and angry in your posts. Was it some childhood trauma that set you off? in any case, I sense extremist tendencies in your posts so have avoided debating you. Everything seems so black and white to you. I'm not sure what you think you will achieve by calling me an idiot and dumb etc. I am guessing you are now skating on thin ice and it will not be long before you are sent packing for insulting others on these boards.

If you are so smart then explain what exactly are 3:199 and 28:48-50 are describing? Then we find out how rational intelligent and grounded you are.

First, I never called you an idiot, if you say something idiotic like you just did that can change though. I will let it slide for now.

If you want to type the verse, I will explain it. I probably have already, I have explained a lot of verses.

That was uncalled for. I don't need to be angry to tell an idiot they are an idiot, it's a word with a purpose and people are not supposed to be flattered by it.

So let them not be idiots. But I am not angry and if I had childhood trauma you'd be a pretty big a hole for saying that. You are lucky I have had a great life, not everyone has so you might want to watch it with comments like that. I had no problem with you before. Now I DO think you are an idiot though.

 

[Augustus]

Cherry picking is the cheap shot of debates, I didn't cherry pick anything I replied with what was relevant to the conversation.

If you are happy to acknowledge that the Middle Ages in Europe were not marked by total hostility to philosophy or science then I apologise.

Byzantium destroyed itself by constantly warring with Parthians, by the time Islam controlled it there wasn't really anyone to fight.

If you expect people to be nuanced when discussing Islam, you need to be nuanced also.

The Parthians didn't conquer Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Cyprus did they? The Caliphates were not exactly friendly neighbours (nobody powerful was in the medieval world). There are also many hadiths that relate to conquering Constantinople or war with Rum.

Muslims were violent. So was everyone else.

And by that time Persia was mostly Muslim and united, and I think you are talking out of your ***.

Then they would be the non-Arab Muslims I was talking about. Why would that constitute talking out of my ***?

Nothing comes close to the horror of the Crusades, if trying to obscure that travesty in the name of Christ, not even close did you come to doing so by mentioning the fallen Byzantine Empire.

Not even close.
War is war.

Genocide (the Crusades) and ethnic cleansing, another

Plenty of things come close to the horror of the Crusades. A large proportion of medieval conquests for a start.

There was no 'genocide', just a good old fashioned mass slaughter of the inhabitants of a conquered city (many of whom, ironically, were Christians). You will find exact analogues in the Islamic conquests (and every other culture's conquests too).

Medieval warfare was very violent across the board, especially to those who didn't submit peacefully.

The 1st Crusade was certainly very murderous, and in the reconquest Saladin was less brutal and did let the Crusaders return home, although only the ones who could pay (others were enslaved), and only after Balian had threatened to destroy the city and everyone in it rather than have it taken by force (Saladin had called for an unconditional surrender).

It was a cold world back then, can you find a single society that was both powerful and peaceful?