Why is Islam so dangerous?

[Audie]

My belief of freedom and liberty is that true freedom is to obey the laws of God. By obeying the laws of Baha’u’llah I have had a happy and stable married life, no drinking, gambling or drug problems and have constant inner peace and am apsurrounded by well meaning friends.

From my personal experience life as a Baha’i has been a lot better than when I wasn’t a Baha’i.

Sounds like "1984". War is peace, Ignorance is
strenth, and, Freedom is slavery.

I have never touched drugs, I am in a strong
stable relationship, never had the least interest
in gambling.

If some external structure is needed by you
to bring peace and order to your life, good
that it works, you are like many millions
of others who do not do well with self-
reliance.

I can do fine without, and, BTW, the freedom
I was speaking of is freedom from superstition.

Humankind has slowly slowly worked its way
out of ignorance and superstition, and yet so
many search for an appealing set of
superstitious beliefs, (as you did), for
somewhere to plunge right back into it.

NO THANKS.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This is where it may create a dilemma for Western policymakers in regards to our policies in the Middle East. Part of me believes that, if that's how they want to run their countries, then let them have at it. Why should we interfere or have anything to do with them whatsoever?

In the Middle East? That is multiple questions. Diplomacy requires military strength but not threats. We can't ignore all world events. We can't get involved in them either. Its catch 22.

If you do a proper investigation you’ll find that the problem lies not with the Quran but with the leaders of religion. It was Christian leaders who promoted wars not Jesus. It is some evil minded Mullas who promote terrorism not the Quran.

The church is the body of Christ on Earth. When Christians follow leaders who promote wars it looks very bad for Christ. We can say after the fact they weren't following Christ, and I am sure they were not. They did however represent Christ. If they did not represent then who did when they were prosecuting these wars in his name? Was Christ asleep? Was Christ hiding? Therefore the churches must put such things behind them. Also if popes are real then they must answer for the actions of previous popes. If missionaries are real they must answer for the actions of missionaries, and if Baal is a god let him defend himself. Don't do it for him. If Christ's church does something wrong, then don't stick up for Christ. Let Christ stick up for himself.

That's your projection. As it turns out, that's not my concern about Sharia. My concern about Sharia is that it runs counter to several key aspects of modern human rights.

Here is Cat Stevens campaigning for state funded Muslim schools in the state of Nevada. Its obvious Muslims are not happy with normative American lifestyles. This, not terrorism, is the danger I'd like people to explain away. Some in this thread keep insisting Islam is purely a religion, but its very political for a religion. Its got a lot of political rules including a rule that it should be nationalized. How can people not see that as a danger. Our country doesn't want a nationalized religion. Many countries (53) have nationalized Islamic religion. That's 53, not just one or two.

In Islam women and girls have the right to an education. The Taliban are Pashtun and Deobandi.. They were orphaned students from the war with the Soviets.. and they took power in the lawless days, when hijacking trucks and rape were very common.. They did restore order.. and being ignorant they simply went too far.

Ok so they have a right to an education in Islam, a political right I would add. Women in Christianity have no specified right to an education, yet their right is recognized in secular governments currently and in many places historically. Not always. Its a political matter unless you are a Muslim then its a religious and political matter. How then is Islam only a religion and not also political institution?

I think what we're really dealing with are variant forms of malignant nationalism. Much of it may have been initially well-intentioned, as a vehicle for opposing Western colonialism and imperialism, although it seems as if a monster has been created in the process.

I would also attribute much of it to the intrigue and duplicity of Cold War geopolitics. We in the West created numerous "monsters" in the Middle East due to our fears that the Soviet Union could do the same - while both sides were maneuvering for hegemony over that region.

Could be. Nationalism is a real thing, and people can fall in love with their countries. China. USSR. Afghanistan has had it rough, and I have brought it up to get Sooda's opinion about it. I don't view it as a normal circumstance. @sooda

 

[sooda]

In the Middle East? That is multiple questions. Diplomacy requires military strength but not threats. We can't ignore all world events. We can't get involved in them either. Its catch 22.

The church is the body of Christ on Earth. When Christians follow leaders who promote wars it looks very bad for Christ. We can say after the fact they weren't following Christ, and I am sure they were not. They did however represent Christ. If they did not represent then who did when they were prosecuting these wars in his name? Was Christ asleep? Was Christ hiding? Therefore the churches must put such things behind them. Also if popes are real then they must answer for the actions of previous popes. If missionaries are real they must answer for the actions of missionaries, and if Baal is a god let him defend himself. Don't do it for him. If Christ's church does something wrong, then don't stick up for Christ. Let Christ stick up for himself.

Here is Cat Stevens campaigning for state funded Muslim schools in the state of Nevada. Its obvious Muslims are not happy with normative American lifestyles. This, not terrorism, is the danger I'd like people to explain away. Some in this thread keep insisting Islam is purely a religion, but its very political for a religion. Its got a lot of political rules including a rule that it should be nationalized. How can people not see that as a danger. Our country doesn't want a nationalized religion. Many countries (53) have nationalized Islamic religion. That's 53, not just one or two.

Ok so they have a right to an education in Islam, a political right I would add. Women in Christianity have no specified right to an education, yet their right is recognized in secular governments currently and in many places historically. Not always. Its a political matter unless you are a Muslim then its a religious and political matter. How then is Islam only a religion and not also political institution?
Could be. Nationalism is a real thing, and people can fall in love with their countries. China. USSR. Afghanistan has had it rough, and I have brought it up to get Sooda's opinion about it. I don't view it as a normal circumstance. @sooda

I prefer patriotism to nationalism.. Nationalism is always aggressive and often racist.. Think Nazism, Zionism, Fascism.. Nasserism was Pan Arab Nationalism, totalitarianism, anarchism, antinomianism, authoritarianism ….communism.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Why not?
In this case Muslims are at war. Not a rare occasion for them. Wouldn't the teachings of this passage apply on a war today? I don't see why not. I guess in my opinion this is one of those passages that can be used at any time.

Thing is, many Qur'anic verses were revealed in a particular context, in this case, in which Muslims were fighting against non-Muslims to defend their right to exist. If that arises today, then the verses arguably apply. If not, they do not. The verses do not justify an aggressive, oppressive kind of war.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I prefer patriotism to nationalism.. Nationalism is always aggressive and often racist.. Think Nazism, Zionism, Fascism.. Nasserism was Pan Arab Nationalism, totalitarianism, anarchism, antinomianism, authoritarianism ….communism.

Hold on, what are you saying about anarchism and antinomianism here?

 

[Raymann]

Only the report by the FBI was on terrorism in the US, not global. The link you provided gives no comparable report.

You're not missing much. A milkman throwing bottles of milk at the local Union might have been seen as an act of terrorism and counted in the report before 2005. Anyway, did you find a comparable report dated after 2005?
I couldn't, not by the FBI, good luck finding one.

 

[ChristineM]

You're not missing much. A milkman throwing bottles of milk at the local Union might have been seen as an act of terrorism and counted in the report before 2005. Anyway, did you find a comparable report dated after 2005?
I couldn't, not by the FBI, good luck finding one.

Now you know throwing milk bottles is really a silly attempt at trying to discredit the fbi report. Do you have something serious?

I am not looking, i provided what evidence is available, you are the one trying to refute it.

 

[Raymann]

in this case, in which Muslims were fighting against non-Muslims to defend their right to exist.

That sounds a little melodramatic. They were not defending their right to exist, they were trying to expand the religion.
The whole thing started when the Muslims sent a messenger offering the Byzantines to convert to Islam. The Byzantines said "no thanks" and killed the messenger. With no attempts for diplomacy the Muslims attacked the Byzantines.

Terrorism report by the FBI

I am not looking (for a new report), i provided what evidence is available, you are the one trying to refute it.

We are in 2019 and that report dates events prior to 2005. Did you look at the report?
Did you look at the reasons the events were included in the report? I did, that's why I came to the conclusion that the report was outdated and the events included in it didn't represent what we today understand as terrorism. That's why they discontinued that specific report.

 

[ChristineM]

We are in 2019 and that report dates events prior to 2005. Did you look at the report?
Did you look at the reasons the events were included in the report? I did, that's why I came to the conclusion that the report was outdated and the events included in it didn't represent what we today understand as terrorism. That's why they discontinued that specific report.

Yes, nothing about throwing milk bottles.

So how has terrorism changed on the last 10 years?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

That sounds a little melodramatic. They were not defending their right to exist, they were trying to expand the religion.
The whole thing started when the Muslims sent a messenger offering the Byzantines to convert to Islam. The Byzantines said "no thanks" and killed the messenger. With no attempts for diplomacy the Muslims attacked the Byzantines.

The Byzantines - with a vastly superior force at their disposal compared to Muhammad's Arabs - were re-occupying territory following a peace treaty with the Sasanids. Muhammad (pbuh) sent an emissary to the ruler of Bosra in peace; this emissary was executed on his way there. This was effectively a declaration of war, Muhammad (pbuh) responded appropriately, and what became known as the Battle of Mu'tah occurred.

 

[Shad]

You need to update your information, Choudary is out early, I guess good conduct or something so feel free to tune in to his preachings and he'll show you what passages of the Quran the bad Muslims use to stay 100% sharia compliant.

Radical preacher Anjem Choudary, jailed for inviting support for the Islamic State group, has been released.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-45911160


Silly application of the law in my view.

Correction: I asked you to comment on Quran 8:39 but was actually sayak83 who asked me about it, sorry about that.

I never received any alert regarding this comment so didn't know about any question. No harm, no foul.

 

[Shad]

I know.. and its a shame.. some 15 years ago KSA deported some thug and I don't remember his name, but the Saudi called and warned the Brits about him.

Of course these crazies make it harder for law abiding families.

Some freedoms are a double-edged sword. To let good views and ideas be free of government means bad ideas are free as well.

 

[Shad]

Still doing jig. Maybe you gloating should be treated as spam

Flipped out, dream on, you have refuted nothing and shown your ignorance of irish politics

I see you are still spamming the thread

What does "any" mean? You claimed X, X was wrong. After all you tried to use it to paint Irish Republicans are only Catholics. You were wrong then tried to make excuses to get out of it. Try again.

 

[Stevicus]

In the Middle East? That is multiple questions. Diplomacy requires military strength but not threats. We can't ignore all world events. We can't get involved in them either. Its catch 22.

We don't have to ignore world events, but we need not get so directly and personally involved with them either. Containment and watching them closely may be effective, just as it worked during the Cold War.

 

[Brickjectivity]

We don't have to ignore world events, but we need not get so directly and personally involved with them either. Containment and watching them closely may be effective, just as it worked during the Cold War.

Generally yes. The communist fad got us worried, however. Communism was overthrowing governments right and left. I am not sure if I could have done better or worse than the people who got us involved.

 

[Notanumber]

In the Middle East? That is multiple questions. Diplomacy requires military strength but not threats. We can't ignore all world events. We can't get involved in them either. Its catch 22.

The church is the body of Christ on Earth. When Christians follow leaders who promote wars it looks very bad for Christ. We can say after the fact they weren't following Christ, and I am sure they were not. They did however represent Christ. If they did not represent then who did when they were prosecuting these wars in his name? Was Christ asleep? Was Christ hiding? Therefore the churches must put such things behind them. Also if popes are real then they must answer for the actions of previous popes. If missionaries are real they must answer for the actions of missionaries, and if Baal is a god let him defend himself. Don't do it for him. If Christ's church does something wrong, then don't stick up for Christ. Let Christ stick up for himself.

Here is Cat Stevens campaigning for state funded Muslim schools in the state of Nevada. Its obvious Muslims are not happy with normative American lifestyles. This, not terrorism, is the danger I'd like people to explain away. Some in this thread keep insisting Islam is purely a religion, but its very political for a religion. Its got a lot of political rules including a rule that it should be nationalized. How can people not see that as a danger. Our country doesn't want a nationalized religion. Many countries (53) have nationalized Islamic religion. That's 53, not just one or two.

Ok so they have a right to an education in Islam, a political right I would add. Women in Christianity have no specified right to an education, yet their right is recognized in secular governments currently and in many places historically. Not always. Its a political matter unless you are a Muslim then its a religious and political matter. How then is Islam only a religion and not also political institution?
Could be. Nationalism is a real thing, and people can fall in love with their countries. China. USSR. Afghanistan has had it rough, and I have brought it up to get Sooda's opinion about it. I don't view it as a normal circumstance. @sooda

Is this the same Cat Stevens?

 

[Raymann]

Muhammad (pbuh) sent an emissary to the ruler of Bosra in peace; this emissary was executed on his way there. This was effectively a declaration of war,

No, it wasn't a declaration of war and in fact the Byzantines never attacked the Muslims it was the Muslims who attacked first against their own principles. Remember the "attack only if you are attacked" rule. It is pretty obvious this was not a defensive fight since the Muslims then conquered the byzantines lands and not only that, they gave them the choice: convert to Islam or will kill you. Very peaceful. That of course was followed by the usual gathering of the women and girls available and their distribution to the Muslim warriors as a reward for their hard work or something. The celebrations included having forced sex with the newly acquired slaves, all this done legally under the Islamic rules on times of war. Not to worry, It's not adultery nor fornication on times of war and is not rape either (they're your slaves).
You do know these rules still apply today, don't you?

 

[sooda]

No, it wasn't a declaration of war and in fact the Byzantines never attacked the Muslims it was the Muslims who attacked first against their own principles. Remember the "attack only if you are attacked" rule. It is pretty obvious this was not a defensive fight since the Muslims then conquered the byzantines lands and not only that, they gave them the choice: convert to Islam or will kill you. Very peaceful. That of course was followed by the usual gathering of the women and girls available and their distribution to the Muslim warriors as a reward for their hard work or something. The celebrations included having forced sex with the newly acquired slaves, all this done legally under the Islamic rules on times of war. Not to worry, It's not adultery nor fornication on times of war and is not rape either (they're your slaves).
You do know these rules still apply today, don't you?

Back up your claims...….

 

[Brickjectivity]

Is this the same Cat Stevens?

I had to look up who Salman Rushdie was, but it did not change the point that Cat Stevens religion required him to follow a different set of laws. In those laws the death of Salman Rushdie was called for.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I see, and what makes you think that?
I know more about Islam than I do about Christianity and I grew up Catholic.



"Beginning with the report for 2004, it replaced the previously published Patterns of Global Terrorism."

"The figures in this Annex are not directly comparable to statistics reported in pre-2005 editions of Patterns of Global Terrorism, or to the figures NCTC reported in 2005. Those figures were compiled on the basis of a more limited methodology tied to the definition of "international terrorism," which is also contained in 22 U.S.C. • 2656f."

Here is an example of the new reports

Why not?
In this case Muslims are at war. Not a rare occasion for them. Wouldn't the teachings of this passage apply on a war today? I don't see why not. I guess in my opinion this is one of those passages that can be used at any time.

I just copied it from the following website.

Quran 8:39 Sahih International

As you can see that's all it shows there.
Why would I hide parts that any Muslim would know is there anyway?
Would the context make it look less violent?
My understanding is this particular fight was initiated by the Muslims so the typical excuse "fight them only if they fight you" doesn't apply in this case.

The whole point is that groups like ISIS easily can use this example and be legally violent according to Islam.

Exactly. This whole thread is about finding out why Islam is so violent.
So you said it, one of the problems might be that terrorists are cherry picking passages from the scriptures.
I am not here to prove the scriptures are violent I'm here to prove the scriptures can be used for peace or for violence depending on who is doing the interpretation.
That's a pretty bad problem islam has to overcome.

Well, Quran 8:39 is not a good example where Muslims obeyed those rules, isn't it?
They started the fight therefore there's no end until everyone has converted or agreed to pay the tax.
Option 3) was never even considered in this case.
There's a lot ISIS like about these verses.

Not at all. Christian majority countries don't have the option to implement religious laws because their governments are for the most part secular. The church has no say on the implementation of laws.

That's not the case with most Muslim majority countries.
They could easily implement 100% Sharia if they wanted to.
As a matter of fact many rules are based on Islam but somehow they're reluctant to go all the way Sharia.

In the whole scheme of things today that's very rare.
I don't think I ever heard of a Christian committing suicide in order to kill as many non christians around him, have you?

Agreed but the evil people we're talking about didn't get the memo that Islam is not supposed to be violent and they truly believe their way is the right way.

You should reflect I believe and consider that an attack on murderers, assassins and terrorists is warranted and nobody will disagree with you there but an attack on Islam which comprises about 1.7 billion innocent peaceful men, women and children living peaceful lives harming no one is inappropriate because what you are doing is creating prejudice towards all Muslims not just the terrorists which is very wrong and unjust and when a Mosque full of innocent worshippers gets gunned down then it is posts like these worldwide which is feeding these hateful sentiments.

We should be ever mindful to attack only wrongdoiners not lump them all together thus creating unnecessary prejudice and placing in harms way innocent people.

I know you loathe terrorism like I do too but I also loathe innocent people being massacred no matter from which religion due to prejudices being fed by posts which should be more responsible.

With great freedom also comes great responsibility. Please take into account that 1.7 million Muslims are fellow peaceful human beings.