Why is Islam so dangerous?

[Raymann]

This expert talks about critical thinking.

Wise words as always from Mr David Wood.

As I said, the surrounding verses make it blatantly obvious that you are promoting ideas that it is not.

We already went thru the context of this verse. Didn't you notice?
This is what The_Fisher_King posted about it:

"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."

I said the same thing paraphrasing the same story but I corrected some obvious errors in the interpretation.
The killing of the emissary was not a declaration of war and the Muslims attacked the Byzantines and not the other way around.
Is that enough context for you or you have some more context to add to the discussion?

They used primarily Hadiths which are in contradiction to what the Quran says.

Quran 8:39 obviously is a Quran verse and not a Hadith and it talks about killing people in it. The truth is right in front of your eyes, why is it so hard to accept it?

Who is this idiot?

That is Mr David Wood for you. A known Christian who has studied the Islamic scriptures with profound attention to detail that today makes him as knowledgeable as the best of the Islamic Scholars.
Do not underestimate his wealth of knowledge in the topic.

 

[sooda]

Wise words as always from Mr David Wood.

We already went thru the context of this verse. Didn't you notice?
This is what The_Fisher_King posted about it:

"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."

I said the same thing paraphrasing the same story but I corrected some obvious errors in the interpretation.
The killing of the emissary was not a declaration of war and the Muslims attacked the Byzantines and not the other way around.
Is that enough context for you or you have some more context to add to the discussion?

Quran 8:39 obviously is a Quran verse and not a Hadith and it talks about killing people in it. The truth is right in front of your eyes, why is it so hard to accept it?

That is Mr David Wood for you. A known Christian who has studied the Islamic scriptures with profound attention to detail that today makes him as knowledgeable as the best of the Islamic Scholars.
Do not underestimate his wealth of knowledge in the topic.

That guy in the video? He's an ignoramus.

He's actually a mental case.

David Wood (Christian apologist) - Wikipedia

By all means turn your brain over to this moron.

 

[Notanumber]

That guy in the video? He's an ignoramus.

He's actually a mental case.

David Wood (Christian apologist) - Wikipedia

By all means turn your brain over to this moron.

Islam didn’t get where it is today without supporters such as yourself and @ChristineM.

Mr David Wood is 100% correct with his analysis of the way the Left has encouraged and emboldened Islamic terrorism in western countries.

 

[sooda]

Which verses specifically are you referring to because the laws of the Old Testament were based on the Ten Commandments so one cannot justify murder using the law thou shalt nit kill.

In the Gospels again Jesus emphasis was on love and forgiveness hardly a basis with which to base violence upon.

With Hinduism the war Krishna fought was after He tried to make peace first. Even the Jews were attacked by the Amalekites for 500 years before going to war with them.

In Islam Muslims were persecuted in Mecca for 13 years. On Muhammad’s watch there was no offensive warfare.

The thing is any clever tyrant can start a war. The Germans believed in Hitler so it doesn’t take religion to kill 6 million Jews. The words wars were not religious either. Violence is not caused by religion but any cause can blind people to kill one another.

True religion teaches only love and unity. You have to cherry pick to the extreme to just focus on violence or more likely believe a pope or caliph. But religion forbids murder. It’s clear in the Holy Books. Terrorists have manuals that are not what 1.7 billion peaceful Muslims read. That’s why they’re terrorises. For Muslims it’s the Quran. For terrorists it’s the terrorist manual. Not the same thing. But religion can be abused I’m not saying it hasn’t been just that it teaches to be good not evil.

"Even the Jews were attacked by the Amalekites for 500 years before going to war with them." What?

 

[ChristineM]

Islam didn’t get where it is today without supporters such as yourself and @ChristineM.

Mr David Wood is 100% correct with his analysis of the way the Left has encouraged and emboldened Islamic terrorism in western countries.

Another project fear foot stomp? Methinks you are confusing islam with terrorism.

When the right came to power i didnt see them doing anything to stop the bombing of syria and sacking of iraq which created the conditions for terrorism to flourish

In fact i believe they increased the bombings.

 

[sooda]

Islam didn’t get where it is today without supporters such as yourself and @ChristineM.

Mr David Wood is 100% correct with his analysis of the way the Left has encouraged and emboldened Islamic terrorism in western countries.

Wood is so ignorant he's working for the terrorists.

 

[ChristineM]

Which still refuted your point as your point was an absolute. Keep ignoring that fact.

I was discussing the IRA and other christian terrorist groups in comparison to islamic terror groups. The ira were 100% catholic until after the ceasefire.

Not my problem that you moved the goalpost and ran with it, which from our past interaction seems to be your style.

 

[Milton Platt]

I don't care much about religion.
I'm not against any religion, don't get me wrong.
I even believe religious people (Christians mainly because I grew up among them) are good people. They seem to be genuinely loving people.
I cannot speak much about other religions on a personal level because I don't make many friends that are not Christians or Atheists. Not my choice, it just happens that way.
Like many people, I have spent many hours researching on Islam after 9/11 happened.
I live in New York City so that was very close to me.
My research findings tell me Islam is a very dangerous religion.
The closer Islam gets to you the more dangerous it gets.
That seems to be a fact.
I know that Muslims are going to ask me to prove it from the scriptures and that is a ridiculous request.
There are 52 or 53 Muslim countries in the world and I can assure you that any of them has some sort of religious tension, wars or religious related violence in them.
I can quickly come up with links to prove it.
Most of the world is still Christian majority and today you rarely will find religion related violence in them.
The question is why?
Is there any hope that this pattern is going to change?
Is there some kind of Islamic reform possible?
Is war against Islam inevitable?

Most Christians aren't in third world countries and they live under secular governments, for one thing.

 

[Raymann]

you are confusing islam with terrorism

Who hasn't? I know there are 1.6 billion of mostly peaceful Muslims but you only hear about Islam when you hear about Islamic terrorism.

Wood is so ignorant he's working for the terrorists.

And how are you planning to backup you claim?

 

[sooda]

Who hasn't? I know there are 1.6 billion of mostly peaceful Muslims but you only hear about Islam when you hear about Islamic terrorism.

And how are you planning to backup you claim?

The terrorists release statements everytime some fool attacks Islam.. They love it. Their strategy is to make Muslims either quit the faith or join them.

Osama Bin Laden wanted 9-11 to turn the West against the Muslim world and bring on a full fledged war. Not only did he kill 3,000 Americans he got a twofer.. He opened the floodgates for every ignorant crackpot to help him with his long term strategy.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

The invasion of Visigoth Spain was almost 80 years after his death. After the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs. It was during the monarchy period under the Umayyad Dynasty

Quite!

 

[Raymann]

On my quest to find out why Islam is so dangerous I explained the war practices after a conquest by the Muslim warriors (Quran 8:39) and I was quickly asked to back up my claims.
Well wasn't that difficult I must say.
Only reliable sources, I promise.
Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50, 70:30, take you pick.

Suad Saleh Al Azhar - Rape of captives for their humiliation is allowed

Wait a minute, so then ISIS was not doing anything anti-Islamic after all?

“I am your rapist”: Muslims bombard former Islamic State sex slaves in Canada with threatening phone calls and texts

Osama Bin Laden wanted 9-11 to turn the West against the Muslim world and bring on a full fledged war. Not only did he kill 3,000 Americans he got a twofer.. He opened the floodgates for every ignorant crackpot to help him with his long term strategy.

First of all, Where did you get that information?
Did Bin Laden said it somewhere?
Is there any proof of what you're saying?
Is this another conspiracy theory of yours?
Why would he want a full fledged war knowing he would lose miserably (as he did)?
No, it doesn't add up.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Wise words as always from Mr David Wood.

We already went thru the context of this verse. Didn't you notice?
This is what The_Fisher_King posted about it:

"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."

I said the same thing paraphrasing the same story but I corrected some obvious errors in the interpretation.
The killing of the emissary was not a declaration of war and the Muslims attacked the Byzantines and not the other way around.
Is that enough context for you or you have some more context to add to the discussion?

Quran 8:39 obviously is a Quran verse and not a Hadith and it talks about killing people in it. The truth is right in front of your eyes, why is it so hard to accept it?

That is Mr David Wood for you. A known Christian who has studied the Islamic scriptures with profound attention to detail that today makes him as knowledgeable as the best of the Islamic Scholars.
Do not underestimate his wealth of knowledge in the topic.

Please kindly look at the context by reading the preceding verses.

Please read the entire context. I underlined the context you’re overlooking. There are a few ‘IFS’ here it doesn’t say just go out and kill as you are inferring. It is conditional upon being attacked first. Read it for yourself. Look at the IFS please. IF THEY RETURN TO ATTACk is the condition. It’s not just going out to kill randomly but if attacked to defend themselves.

Say unto the unbelievers, that if they desist from opposing thee, what is already past shall be forgiven them; but if they return to attack thee, the exemplary punishment of the former opposers of the prophets is already past, and the like shall be inflicted on them. Therefore fight against them until there be no opposition in favor of idolatry, and the religion be wholly GOD'S. If they desist, verily GOD seeth that which they doGeorge Sale)

And earlier in this chapter we read:

30 And call to mind when the unbelievers plotted against thee, that they might either detain thee in bonds, or put to death, or expel thee the city; and they plotted against thee:

So what were the unbelievers doing? Minding their own business? No. They were putting to death the Muslims, kidnapping them and torturing them. Can we honestly expect Muslims to have just lied down and accepted genocide?

No country or nation can accept genocide. The Muslims were faced with annihilation. They had no choice but to defend themselves or be completely wiped out.

 

[Notanumber]

Islam didn’t get where it is today without supporters such as yourself and @ChristineM.

Mr David Wood is 100% correct with his analysis of the way the Left has encouraged and emboldened Islamic terrorism in western countries.

This exemplifies the point that David Wood was making in his video.

Georgetown Lecturer Whitewashes Islamism, Blames West for Jihadis | The American Spectator | Politics is too important to be taken seriously.

 

[ChristineM]

Who hasn't? I know there are 1.6 billion of mostly peaceful Muslims but you only hear about Islam when you hear about Islamic terrorism.

And how are you planning to backup you claim?

You actually backed it up in your post i quote I know there are 1.6 billion of mostly peaceful Muslims but you only hear about Islam when you hear about Islamic terrorism"

 

[Raymann]

The terrorists release statements everytime some fool attacks Islam.. They love it. Their strategy is to make Muslims either quit the faith or join them.

I'm sorry, that kept me thinking.
What are you saying?
What kind of attacks against Islam are you talking about?
Youtube video attacks?, military attacks?, forum attacks? or what?
Maybe you're on to something.
Not many Muslims dare leave Islam (Apostasy) and risk their lives while running away.
On the other hand I heard some stories of some lost souls that joined ISIS and when they realized their mistake it was too late. Sad.

Please read the entire context. I underlined the context you’re overlooking. There are a few ‘IFS’ here it doesn’t say just go out and kill as you are inferring. It is conditional upon being attacked first.

Ok let's stop it here for a second. The verse already assumes the condition for war has been met. Meaning, the Muslims considered they had been attacked (in reality they were never attacked).
Now they are at war and the verse doesn't say Fight them until they stop fighting you, the verse says Fight them until there is no more fitnah and fight them until they convert to Islam. I just paraphrased to make it shorted.
Very clear to me, even with the IFS and UNTILS (CONDITIONALS)

So what were the unbelievers doing? (before the war started) Minding their own business? No. They were putting to death the Muslims, kidnapping them and torturing them. Can we honestly expect Muslims to have just lied down and accepted genocide?

Here you have some serious explaining to do.
Most trustworthy Islamic scholars would say the killing of the messenger was what started the war.
They believe that was actually a declaration of war (it wasn't actually)
You, on the other hand come with this new theory out of nowhere saying the Muslims were being kidnaped and killed and implying this was what started the war.
Very suspicious.
Please explain.
Where did you get that?
We need direct links to that information.

 

[kiwimac]

Wise words as always from Mr David Wood.

We already went thru the context of this verse. Didn't you notice?
This is what The_Fisher_King posted about it:

"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."

I said the same thing paraphrasing the same story but I corrected some obvious errors in the interpretation.
The killing of the emissary was not a declaration of war and the Muslims attacked the Byzantines and not the other way around.
Is that enough context for you or you have some more context to add to the discussion?

Quran 8:39 obviously is a Quran verse and not a Hadith and it talks about killing people in it. The truth is right in front of your eyes, why is it so hard to accept it?

That is Mr David Wood for you. A known Christian who has studied the Islamic scriptures with profound attention to detail that today makes him as knowledgeable as the best of the Islamic Scholars.
Do not underestimate his wealth of knowledge in the topic.

The execution of an ambassador has always been a declaration of war. You cannot kill a nation's emissary without a compelling reason. As for the verse you have quoted from the Qur'an. Please note the following:

Quran 8:39 – “And fight with them until there is no more fitna and religion should be only for Allah”

Let’s read a better translation for Q. 8:39,

Pickthall Quran 8:39 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.

The ‘fitna’ mentioned in the above verse (Q 8:39) means persecution, oppression, as shown by Pickthall’s Quran translation. When the verse says, “And fight with them until there is no more fitna”, it gave Muslims permission to fight until there is no more persecution (fitna), 1400 years ago. Critics elude to this passage claiming that the Arabic word ‘fitna’ used here does not really mean ‘persecution’ or ‘oppression’, according to these self-made scholars who have no formal education on Islam, to them the word ‘fitna’ means ‘unbelief’. When it is used in that sense, they’re trying to portray the verse to non-Muslims who don’t know the Arabic language that the passage sanctions Muslims to fight non-believers on account of them of being non-Muslim. However, when we consult Arabic-English dictionaries critics’ deception is exposed. In the following article which can be seen here, I have provided many Muslim and non-Muslim scholarly evidences that the Arabic word ‘fitna’ means, ‘persecution’, ‘oppression’.

Non-Muslim Quran Translations for 8:39

Arthur John Arberry Quran 8:39 Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is God’s entirely; then if they give over, surely God sees the things they do…

George Sale Quran 8:39 And fight them until there is no persecution and religion is wholly to God. But if they desist, then surely God is Watchful of what they do.

Qur’an Commentaries

Muhammad Asad:

“39 I.e., until man is free to worship God. Cf. the identical phrase in 2:193, and the corresponding note. Both these passages stress self-defence – in the widest sense of this word – as the only justification of war.” [1]

The Holy Qur’an Arabic Text With English Translation & Short Commentary – Malik Ghulam Farid:

“1120. Muslims were enjoined to fight till religious persecution had ceased and men were free to practice the religion of their choice. Islam undoubtedly is the greatest upholder of freedom of conscience (2:194).” [2]

The Holy Quran Arabic Text with English Translation, Commentary and comprehensive Introduction – Maulana Muhammad Ali:

“39a That is, desist from fighting and put an end to their mischief, God’s decree of punishment will not be executed. God sees what men do, and if they mend their ways, He will not punish them. The state of religious liberty which Islam aimed at is put tersely in the two opening statements – ‘there is no more persecution and all religions are for Allah’.
40a. If they return to fight, then Allah will protect the Muslim community, helping them against their enemy, as He is their Patron and Helper.” [3]



Related article:

“Shirk Or Persecution – What does The Word Fitna Mean?”



References:

[1] The Message of The Quran Translated And explained by Muhammad Asad
[2] The Holy Qur’an Arabic Text With English Translation & Short Commentary By Malik Ghulam Farid, page 366
[3] The Holy Quran Arabic Text with English Translation, Commentary and comprehensive Introduction [Year 2002 Edition] by Maulana Muhammad Ali, page 385

 

[loverofhumanity]

I'm sorry, that kept me thinking.
What are you saying?
What kind of attacks against Islam are you talking about?
Youtube video attacks?, military attacks?, forum attacks? or what?
Maybe you're on to something.
Not many Muslims dare leave Islam (Apostasy) and risk their lives while running away.
On the other hand I heard some stories of some lost souls that joined ISIS and when they realized their mistake it was too late. Sad.

Ok let's stop it here for a second. The verse already assumes the condition for war has been met. Meaning, the Muslims considered they had been attacked (in reality they were never attacked).
Now they are at war and the verse doesn't say Fight them until they stop fighting you, the verse says Fight them until there is no more fitnah and fight them until they convert to Islam. I just paraphrased to make it shorted.
Very clear to me, even with the IFS and UNTILS (CONDITIONALS)

Here you have some serious explaining to do.
Most trustworthy Islamic scholars would say the killing of the messenger was what started the war.
They believe that was actually a declaration of war (it wasn't actually)
You, on the other hand come with this new theory out of nowhere saying the Muslims were being kidnaped and killed and implying this was what started the war.
Very suspicious.
Please explain.
Where did you get that?
We need direct links to that information.

The verse is clear that war was only on it they didn’t stop attacking the Muslims.

Muslims did not fight unless attacked first.

2:190

2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:

J M Rodwell

And during the lifetime of Muhammad on His watch they only responded to attacks or threats but never murdered any innocent people. They only attacked enemies who attacked them first.

 

[sooda]

On my quest to find out why Islam is so dangerous I explained the war practices after a conquest by the Muslim warriors (Quran 8:39) and I was quickly asked to back up my claims.
Well wasn't that difficult I must say.
Only reliable sources, I promise.
Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50, 70:30, take you pick.

Suad Saleh Al Azhar - Rape of captives for their humiliation is allowed

Wait a minute, so then ISIS was not doing anything anti-Islamic after all?

“I am your rapist”: Muslims bombard former Islamic State sex slaves in Canada with threatening phone calls and texts

First of all, Where did you get that information?
Did Bin Laden said it somewhere?
Is there any proof of what you're saying?
Is this another conspiracy theory of yours?
Why would he want a full fledged war knowing he would lose miserably (as he did)?
No, it doesn't add up.

Actually, he is winning posthumously.. You are still trashing Muslims as an internet expert.

Some Reasons Why Humanists Reject The Bible

https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/reasons-humanists-reject-bible/​

 

[sooda]

I'm sorry, that kept me thinking.
What are you saying?

What kind of attacks against Islam are you talking about?
Youtube video attacks?, military attacks?, forum attacks? or what?
Maybe you're on to something.
Not many Muslims dare leave Islam (Apostasy) and risk their lives while running away.
On the other hand I heard some stories of some lost souls that joined ISIS and when they realized their mistake it was too late. Sad.

Ok let's stop it here for a second. The verse already assumes the condition for war has been met. Meaning, the Muslims considered they had been attacked (in reality they were never attacked).
Now they are at war and the verse doesn't say Fight them until they stop fighting you, the verse says Fight them until there is no more fitnah and fight them until they convert to Islam. I just paraphrased to make it shorted.
Very clear to me, even with the IFS and UNTILS (CONDITIONALS)

Here you have some serious explaining to do.
Most trustworthy Islamic scholars would say the killing of the messenger was what started the war.
They believe that was actually a declaration of war (it wasn't actually)
You, on the other hand come with this new theory out of nowhere saying the Muslims were being kidnaped and killed and implying this was what started the war.
Very suspicious.
Please explain.
Where did you get that?
We need direct links to that information.

Scapegoating Muslims Is Playing Into the Hands of ISIS
https://www.newsweek.com/scapegoating-muslims-playing-hands-isis-401109
ISIS needs the West to alienate and marginalize its Muslim citizens in order to foster the appearance of a war against Islam.

ISIS desperately needs new recruits in order to contend with its massive weakness compared with the forces aligned against the group and its incredible unpopularity among Muslims in Muslim-majority countries.