"Religion of Peace?"

[shmogie]

Yep I have read both. And I've also met plenty of Muslims who welcome me with open arms, don't care that I'm not of their faith, or that I'm critical of their holy texts, don't care if I bring a gay friend over, don't care if I have religious disagreements. Pretty much are the same as my Christian friends who don't care that I think the bible is inexcusably misogynistic, racist, violent and intolerant.
So clearly those Muslims don't see the same things in their holy texts you do. So maybe you should argue the things they do believe instead of pretend your opinion on their text is authorative.

As I told you in another post, you cannot judge doctrines by those who propose to believe them. If you have read them, are you proposing that they present a faith of peace ? You read in the hadith of mohammed being covered in the blood of those he murdered. You read in the koran the 106 sura's or so commanding death or torture for infidels. You read of forced conversion, of mohammeds six year old wife, or his affinity for taking baths with nude children, all recorded, all obvious. I couldn't care less about the moslem "interpretation" of these things, nor yours. As a great old song said " you don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing ".

 

[ADigitalArtist]

As I told you in another post, you cannot judge doctrines by those who propose to believe them. If you have read them, are you proposing that they present a faith of peace ? You read in the hadith of mohammed being covered in the blood of those he murdered. You read in the koran the 106 sura's or so commanding death or torture for infidels. You read of forced conversion, of mohammeds six year old wife, or his affinity for taking baths with nude children, all recorded, all obvious. I couldn't care less about the moslem "interpretation" of these things, nor yours. As a great old song said " you don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing ".

Cool then. I declare the bible is racist, misogynistic, genocidal, tyrannical and homophobic and anyone else who says otherwise just can't see the way the wind blows.

Because that's how it works in 'I'm making my subjective interpretation into a pillar of objective statements' land.

 

[shmogie]

The Hadith text is a part of Sunni Islam. Even among Sunni, only a few think the Sharia cannot change (ijtehad is forbidden). Are these the people you are calling true Moslims? If you are, then I believe it is a mistake as you are deliberately alienating a large number of religiously observant Muslims, who follow the 5 pillars.

I am not attempting to alienate anyone. The point is sharia HAS NOT changed. The wahabi, sunni's, don't accept the hadith. So, why don't you tell me what a true moslem believes ? I would like to hear it from "the horses mouth" I don't care if you are shia or sunni or allewite, I would like to hear how you view your faith. Then we can discuss the koran and history. I am truly interested in a true and honest exchange, maybe I could learn something.

 

[icehorse]

So do you think there are Christians on Urdu or Begali forums debating the flaws of Christianity in those languages? I doubt it. Muslims discuss issues in their languages and in Arabic. Very few know English and even fewer discuss religion in it. So you may have to wait a long time. You could learn Arabic and join them on their forums

I think that's a false equivalence. The west is being asked to accept millions of immigrants from largely failed states. Pakistan is not in the same position.

 

[icehorse]

As I told you in another post, you cannot judge doctrines by those who propose to believe them. If you have read them, are you proposing that they present a faith of peace ? You read in the hadith of mohammed being covered in the blood of those he murdered. You read in the koran the 106 sura's or so commanding death or torture for infidels. You read of forced conversion, of mohammeds six year old wife, or his affinity for taking baths with nude children, all recorded, all obvious. I couldn't care less about the moslem "interpretation" of these things, nor yours. As a great old song said " you don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing ".

This is a great perspective. In my experience I'm not allowed to read the doctrines parsimoniously either

 

[shmogie]

Cool then. I declare the bible is racist, misogynistic, genocidal, tyrannical and homophobic and anyone else who says otherwise just can't see the way the wind blows.

Because that's how it works in 'I'm making my subjective interpretation into a pillar of objective statements' land.

Your view of the Bible is less important to me than the number of crab farts on the beaches of malaysia in 1953. You are conveniently dodging the direct question.

 

[icehorse]

The lack of openness seems more to me like the lack of listeners than lack of speakers.

Muslims are far more likely to be fundamentalists than Christians. But in both cases, fundamentalists tend NOT to be open to honest criticisms of their religions.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Your view of the Bible is less important to me than the number of crab farts on the beaches of malaysia in 1953. You are conveniently dodging the direct question.

Coincidentally your view of the Quran is about as important to me, or to the majority of people. Certainly not the people you're blowing all the air at.

You never had a direct question. You just had a direct statement, and a pretty hypocritical one at that. Trying to set up obviously disputed claims which are not in any way 'just the facts' as facts in order to justify your loathsome generalizations. Then get mad when the exact same is done towards your faith.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Muslims are far more likely to be fundamentalists than Christians.

How could you possibly source that claim?

 

[shmogie]

Coincidentally your view of the Quran is about as important to me, or to the majority of people. Certainly not the people you're blowing all the air at.

You never had a direct question. You just had a direct statement, and a pretty hypocritical one at that. Trying to set up obviously disputed claims which are not in any way 'just the facts' as facts in order to justify your loathsome generalizations. Then get mad when the exact same is done towards your faith.

I'm not mad. You said you have read the koran and hadith, the direct question written was, based upon your reading, did you find islam a religion of peace ? Will you answer, will you tell the truth, will you prevaricate, will you lie, will you slip n slide ?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm not mad. You said you have read the koran and hadith, the direct question written was, based upon your reading, did you find islam a religion of peace ? Will you answer, will you tell the truth, will you prevaricate, will you lie, will you slip n slide ?

I answered that question in the first page of this thread. "Religion of Peace?"

 

[sovietchild]

Aberamentho

What you believe and what we know are two different thing's.

Firstly, My friends 5 cousins all captains in the USA fire department attended the blazes that day.
The youngest was in one of the towers when it collapsed.
I watched the second plane hit the towers live on tv.
We saw footage of live coverage and also calls from planes one brought down before hitting target,

How can anyone refuse to accept that terrorism was responsible?

I am not going to be drawn into a debate about you wanting to excuse terrorist fighting in the name of Islam from being responsible.

So let us make a quick statement for you to think about.

Whatever you believe about the 9/11 the fact that muslims in Islamic countries kill their own people in the street for sinning
shows how barbaric the reality of such a religion really is. Under that evidence I see no reason to doubt who was truly
responsible for the 9/11, The fact someone claiming to be from a 'peaceful religion' can try and excuse such actions
and remove blame elsewhere is actually dumbfounding by all sense of reason.

In 2010 there were 2.8 billion Christians not counting any other religion like the Jews who believe in YHWH.
But the number does not interest me. Because clearly YHWH is the only God to have actually done anything as far as gods go.
So he can still claim to be the only God. Whilst he is charge you haven't a chance of your beliefs being fulfilled.
Thank God.


Your terrorist, Islams terrorist still use the verses I quoted to action their killings.
Whatever verses you bring does not stop that being true. I am not interested in helping you try and excuse yourself or your religion for the part in plays (however small or large)
in the actions of terrorist.

To the honour of the true God , YHWH and all those people who have been hurt and murdered in the name of your religion, I will not give you a platform to dishonour their memories
or the greatest gift they gave for others to defend and help them... their lives.

How can one make a cell phone call at 30,000 feet flying at 400 MPH?

 

[J2hapydna]

As I told you in another post, you cannot judge doctrines by those who propose to believe them. If you have read them, are you proposing that they present a faith of peace ? You read in the hadith of mohammed being covered in the blood of those he murdered. You read in the koran the 106 sura's or so commanding death or torture for infidels. You read of forced conversion, of mohammeds six year old wife, or his affinity for taking baths with nude children, all recorded, all obvious. I couldn't care less about the moslem "interpretation" of these things, nor yours. As a great old song said " you don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing ".

The Hadith were recorded after the Umayyad rose to power. The Umayyads were in my opinion psychopathic and would have wanted some Hadiths like this to justify their corrupt way of life. This and the fact that these Hadith texts were written over a century after MP passed away made them unreliable in my opinion.

I think many Muslims see it the way I do. What most Muslims believe is that the Quran is reliable as it was written before the Umayyads rose to power. The rest is not reliable as there is a Hadith that says Muhammad had forbidden Muslims from writing down any religious texts after the Quran. Also, Umer had refused to write down MPs last words of advice claiming they were his personal opinions and we only need the Quran. since Hadiths / Sira were all written after the four Rashidun so they cannot be very reliable. Furthermore. Since usool was written after the Sira and Hadith it is even more unreliable

By the way, there is an entire group of Sunni Muslims known as Quranists who reject the Sira and Hadith. The rationalists and deists such as Sunni Muslim Sir Syed rejected the Islamic methods of determining which Hadith are reliable and which are not too (usool). He also believed that the Quran is allegorical

In my personal understanding OT/Gospels and Quran are reliable, but many things are allegorical in them. Some Hadith and Sira are reliable. However the usool is unreliable because it was shaped and influenced by the Umayyads who were corrupt and didn't understand MP or his message
as they were ex pagans who didn't like MP and hadn't spent much time with MP

 

[icehorse]

How could you possibly source that claim?

There are roughly 500-700 million Islamists in the world. The highest count I've ever heard for Christian fundamentalists is 50 million.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

There are roughly 500-700 million Islamists in the world. The highest count I've ever heard for Christian fundamentalists is 50 million.

Can you qualify 'Islamist' and how that is fundamentalism? And how Christian fundamentalism is just 50 million?
Also you said more likely, which is a statement of ratio, not total population.

 

[icehorse]

Can you qualify 'Islamist' and how that is fundamentalism? And how Christian fundamentalism is just 50 million?
Also you said more likely, which is a statement of ratio, not total population.

An Islamists wants to be ruled under Sharia.
On the Christians you have to do a little googling and triangulating.
For rough estimation purposes:

2.2 billion christians, so 50 million is 3-4%
1.6 billion muslims, so 500 million is 30+%

 

[ADigitalArtist]

An Islamists wants to be ruled under Sharia.
On the Christians you have to do a little googling and triangulating.
For rough estimation purposes:

2.2 billion christians, so 50 million is 3-4%
1.6 billion muslims, so 500 million is 30+%

We've already had many different threads discussing Sharia meaning different things to different people. So that doesn't really equal fundamentalism to me.

Also I still don't agree with that statistic with Christians as is. Are they equating fundamentalism with literalism? Because that's not the same thing.

 

[icehorse]

We've already had many different threads discussing Sharia meaning different things to different people. So that doesn't really equal fundamentalism to me.

I've given you my definition, which I didn't make up. What's your definition?

Also I still don't agree with that statistic with Christians as is. Are they equating fundamentalism with literalism? Because that's not the same thing.

Again, I did a bit of googling and found some consistency in the definition. Again, what's your definition?

In other words, it's fair for you to knock my definitions, but you have to do that from some context, correct? So I'm asking you to declare the context from which you concluded you didn't like my definitions.

 

[J2hapydna]

I am not attempting to alienate anyone. The point is sharia HAS NOT changed. The wahabi, sunni's, don't accept the hadith. So, why don't you tell me what a true moslem believes ? I would like to hear it from "the horses mouth" I don't care if you are shia or sunni or allewite, I would like to hear how you view your faith. Then we can discuss the koran and history. I am truly interested in a true and honest exchange, maybe I could learn something.

Good point but the unchanged Sharia isn't implemented in too many countries either. So it's irrelevant for now. However, you are right it can be extremely dangerous

Perhaps the next time Muslims are polled about whether they want Shariah or not, the pollsters should also ask do they want it the way it is in the books or do they want it reformed. That would give a more accurate percentage of shariaists in the Islamic world.

I believe MP was promised in the Bible in passages such as Isaiah 19, Matt 24, Dan 10 and Isaiah 44 etc. once those conditions fell upon the earth (darkness, fall in temperatures, plague, volcanoes, death, wars) and MP rose and fulfilled the prophecies of erecting a temple on the border of Egypt, defeated the Persians and Greeks, united the people of Assyria and Egypt and returned the Jews to Jerusalem, the average Christians including those such as the ruler of Ethiopia accepted him as the promised savior.

MPs purpose was to demonstrate that God of the Bible could predict the future. He achieved his purpose

Once MP passed away, the psychopath Umayyads replaced the equally mad and insane Heraclius and Chosroes as the new tyrants in the region. The Koresh did not know God according to Dan 10. They were deployed by God as servants of God to push back the Persians and Greeks so the Jews wouldn't be exterminated and could return to Jerusalem . They weren't chosen for having knowledge about God or his religion. They did their job of humiliating the Persians and Greeks for being insanely cruel to the Jews. Beyond that they really have no knowledge of what MP was teaching. The Umayyads weren't very close to MP and had killed those who were during bloody occupations of both Medina and Mecca. They also imprisoned those who disagreed with them. So what the Umayyads created sometimes contradicts the Quran and at other times combines what they found the Christians practicing under the Justinian code and from their pagan past.

Islam is not a new religion. It refers to a family of faiths that includes Judaism and Christianity as well as Ishmaeliteism. It's basic message is do not to be an extremist. It wants all the nations of the world to worship god thru whichever religion they want as long as they don't practice extreme cruelty when they do it. They are welcome to call this creator by any name as long as it is a beautiful and wholesome name.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I've given you my definition, which I didn't make up. What's your definition?

By your definition Malala Yousufzai is a fundamentalist.
Personally I wouldn't use the term with any Muslim as 'fundamentalism' is a specific Christian movement that doesn't translate to other religions.

Again, I did a bit of googling and found some consistency in the definition. Again, what's your definition?

In other words, it's fair for you to knock my definitions, but you have to do that from some context, correct? So I'm asking you to declare the context from which you concluded you didn't like my definitions.

Like I said, fundamentalism is a specific Christian movement tied to Christian restoration and includes a lot of denominations and non-denominational views. Christian fundamentalism - Wikipedia
Even if you just included Baptists and dismissed Presbytarian and orthodox Catholics that alone would be 50 million. So it should be much more.