Why is Islam so dangerous?

[loverofhumanity]

"BELIEF" is not a virtue - I don't "believe" things.

This said I know the Qur'an is forged and did not come from a god. I've researched the origins of the Qur'an and traced it back to its original sources, which I have read and cross-referenced with the Qur'an, and found it to be certain that the book is a forgery.

This is not a "belief", this is known to me. It takes "belief" to "believe" that a merchant war lord was receiving revelations from an angel.

However again, Islam is not the first to make such a claim. The same is/was made for the Torah, which itself utilizes 4 sources with a 5th redactor. I also know that the historical "Moses" was based on the Egyptian Akhunatun who lived a parallel life, got kicked out of Egypt with his followers of his Atun monotheism.

This mixed with the Canaanite tribes and became Judaism.



Oh, so you're a racist too. Nationalism doesn't have anything to do with skin color - only racists normalize this expression in accordance with the hatred generated by Islam. Islam has carried out more terrorist attacks in places of worship than all faiths combined. The fact that Islam politically exploited this is telling of something much more sinister.

Again, the problem is the state of Islam itself. The Qur'an did not come from a god (it was compiled hundreds of miles north of Mecca), and Mecca did not even exist at the time of Muhammad as a city. The earlier Muslims used to face Petra.

Any religion which uses a male patriarchal central figure (especially a warlord one whose "example" is practically infidel) and spilling blood over criticisms of this idol is precisely what (real) idol worship is.

That Muslim women are blamed for the iniquity of men is precisely why the Biblical Adam was cast out of Eden: he tried to blame the woman for his own eating the fruit. That is exactly what Muhammadan men tend toward: blaming everything on the women and treating non-Muslim women (ie. women that do not "believe" Muhammad is a role model) as war spoils.

This is sub-human barbarism. Not that Muslims are sub-human (some are, but so are some non-Muslims) but the ideology of Islam as a personless state is pure patriarchal male-dominated phallic worship barbarism: the institutionalization of sexual degeneracy (ie. pedophilia) which rots the brain (ie. Eve gives the fruit to Adam).

All of this is in the first book of "Moses"... who was not even a Hebrew and did not lead a Potent exodus. The whole Abrahamic pantheon is built on lie upon lie, beginning with the Canaanites/Jews of antiquity post-Akhunatun.

Then that’s your belief and you are free to believe what you will.

My object is to see peace between all people, east and west, Muslim and Christian so I see that there is goodness in all people and also weakness but in trying to be tolerant and respecting other peoples beliefs we have the opportunity to create goodwill and peace and to me that is something worth working towards don’t you think?

To me it’s more important to love people than to sit in judgement of them. The world needs love not judgement and more criticism. If we look at the goodness of people then we can have peace. As to criminals that’s for the law to take care of but I am a great believer in the goodness of people no matter which religion, race or nationality and I seek peace with all of them.

 

[9-18-1]

Then that’s your belief and you are free to believe what you will.

It's not a belief - "belief" is not a virtue - it is the problem.

My object is to see peace between all people, east and west, Muslim and Christian so I see that there is goodness in all people and also weakness but in trying to be tolerant and respecting other peoples beliefs we have the opportunity to create goodwill and peace and to me that is something worth working towards don’t you think?

No - it is ignorant. Some "beliefs" should *not* be respected, especially when they:

i. are not true, and
ii. dictate how to treat/regard others (ie. "unbelievers"). This begs for fascism and is a source of it.

Tolerance is a two-way street: whereas one must tolerate others' views, the other must tolerate criticisms of them; especially if they are demonstrably not true.

Given the gravity of the claim of Islam: they are in possession of the perfect word of god and Muhammad is the most exemplary character for humanity (which is idol worship) and Islam is the only acceptable religion, such is already in the territory of 'extremism' which is precisely what Islam is: extreme.

However still, the first victim of Islam is the "believing" Muslim who essentially suffers their own ideology but constantly tries to appropriate this internal suffering as coming from outside sources (ie. scapegoating). And here is where projection infects Judeo-Islamic theology: pin the sins of ones own on another and sacrifice them. This is the seed whence Christianity will arise, Islam being a later heresy of it. It all involves blaming the other for ones own suffering and trying to make everyone else suffer as much as they suffer (ie. the basis of socialism). This is all related to "belief"-based states.

To me it’s more important to love people than to sit in judgement of them. The world needs love not judgement and more criticism. If we look at the goodness of people then we can have peace. As to criminals that’s for the law to take care of but I am a great believer in the goodness of people no matter which religion, race or nationality and I seek peace with all of them.

This need not be about "people" - this is about a "belief"-based 'state' standing on a "belief"-based claim... which is not true. If we are to bring this "goodness" you speak of, it would be much more potent to eradicate that which prevents peoples' goodness from being shared: religious imposition.

Islam essentially puts all blame/shame on the woman which, according to even the first book of Moses (ironically) this is precisely why Adam was kicked out of Eden: blaming the woman for his own iniquity. Islam is the perpetual fall of man (ie. sexual degeneration given the infidelity of the so-called prophet) which turns the primordial Edenic state of one man and woman into a terrestrial warzone taking women as (captive) sex slaves and dreaming of fixed and graven images of virgin-filled heavens.

On that I'll leave with:

Rot and nonsense.

That is exactly what Islam is: rot and nonsense that destroys everything it comes into contact with that doesn't "accept" the message of Islam. The Qur'an is completely manhandled (like the Torah) and one thus can not even join Islam without breaking one of the ten commandments.

This is one of the reasons I don't deny there being an (Abrahamic) god: it would hold the hammer of justice re: the ten commandments.

I certainly won't be found bearing testimony of dead men requiring adoption of their graven "pattern of conduct" upon which to construct my own being, and spill blood over criticisms of this idol. This is exactly what idol worship is, why it was (apparently) forbidden, and why Christians/Muslims are idol worshipers in idolatrous cults responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions.

That is rot and nonsense. Better would be: one man to one woman. Not elevating a one man to eleven+ concubines to the highest possible standard. This will only manufacture brain rot in the form of sexual degeneracy (ie. pedophilia, which Muhammad was involved with, setting a state-sanctioned precedent for it).

That Jesus taught chastity as a requirement but Muhammad was of infidel nature is a conundrum in and of itself that escapes the Muhammadan mind given the fixation to women as sex objects in general. Hence the need to project this into the West and criticize it for what Islam is guilty of. This is really all Islam does; hence the sudden appearance and so-called rise of "Islamophobia" which is actually what Muslims/leaders have because they can't stand the reality that what they "believe" is not true, so they use forcible suppression (ie. fascism) by labeling whoever stirs up this Islamophobia in them as Islamophobic. Pure scapegoating - but not original/unique to Islam. They learned it from their ancestors the Jews who did/do the same (ie. Marxism).

 

[loverofhumanity]

You've succinctly and, I think, Intellectually honestly explained why islam and the Quran does not promote violence and instead promotes peace. However, I won't let you divert this topic to other ideologies, attitudes or events. This topic is about Islam. This is not me defending the actions of others; this is me making sure a tu quoque fallacy does not occur by refusing to engage in deflection and redirection. I've noticed this is a fairly common tactic, perhaps not a conscious act, among some individuals in these forums like my favourite sooda here.

Without further ado, can you explain with all the succinctness and intellectual honesty you've displayed, what the Quran and/or Hadiths say about disbelievers and polytheists?
This includes what Allah says about them. If you can be intellectually honest about this, we can go further in the dialogue.

Ok. These passages cover all types of disbelievers who cannot be harmed or forced to change their beliefs. They are verbally warned though in various passages that their beliefs don’t lead to God.

Not to discriminate against non believers

4: 94 O you who believe! When you go forth in the way of God, be discerning, and say not unto him who offers you peace, “You are not a believer,” seeking the ephemeralities of the life of this world, for with God are abundant spoils.

Forced conversion forbidden

2:256

Let there be no compulsion in Religion.


Live and let live

109 SAY: O ye UNBELIEVERS! I worship not that which ye worship, And ye do not worship that which I worship; I shall never worship that which ye worship, Neither will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your religion; to me my religion.

Not to tell untruths

2:42

And clothe not the truth with falsehood, and hide not the truth when ye know it

Return good for evil

41:34

Good deeds are not equal to the evil ones. Repel other's evil deeds with your good deeds. You will see that he with whom you had enmity, will become your close friend.

So the crux of the Quran is to be merciful and peaceful to all but treat with justice those who attack the innocent. So non believers can’t be attached or forced to convert. However if they attack Muslims then Muslims have the right of self defence.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It's not a belief - "belief" is not a virtue - it is the problem.



No - it is ignorant. Some "beliefs" should *not* be respected, especially when they:

i. are not true, and
ii. dictate how to treat/regard others (ie. "unbelievers"). This begs for fascism and is a source of it.

Tolerance is a two-way street: whereas one must tolerate others' views, the other must tolerate criticisms of them; especially if they are demonstrably not true.

Given the gravity of the claim of Islam: they are in possession of the perfect word of god and Muhammad is the most exemplary character for humanity (which is idol worship) and Islam is the only acceptable religion, such is already in the territory of 'extremism' which is precisely what Islam is: extreme.

However still, the first victim of Islam is the "believing" Muslim who essentially suffers their own ideology but constantly tries to appropriate this internal suffering as coming from outside sources (ie. scapegoating). And here is where projection infects Judeo-Islamic theology: pin the sins of ones own on another and sacrifice them. This is the seed whence Christianity will arise, Islam being a later heresy of it. It all involves blaming the other for ones own suffering and trying to make everyone else suffer as much as they suffer (ie. the basis of socialism). This is all related to "belief"-based states.



This need not be about "people" - this is about a "belief"-based 'state' standing on a "belief"-based claim... which is not true. If we are to bring this "goodness" you speak of, it would be much more potent to eradicate that which prevents peoples' goodness from being shared: religious imposition.

Islam essentially puts all blame/shame on the woman which, according to even the first book of Moses (ironically) this is precisely why Adam was kicked out of Eden: blaming the woman for his own iniquity. Islam is the perpetual fall of man (ie. sexual degeneration given the infidelity of the so-called prophet) which turns the primordial Edenic state of one man and woman into a terrestrial warzone taking women as (captive) sex slaves and dreaming of fixed and graven images of virgin-filled heavens.

On that I'll leave with:



That is exactly what Islam is: rot and nonsense that destroys everything it comes into contact with that doesn't "accept" the message of Islam. The Qur'an is completely manhandled (like the Torah) and one thus can not even join Islam without breaking one of the ten commandments.

This is one of the reasons I don't deny there being an (Abrahamic) god: it would hold the hammer of justice re: the ten commandments.

I certainly won't be found bearing testimony of dead men requiring adoption of their graven "pattern of conduct" upon which to construct my own being, and spill blood over criticisms of this idol. This is exactly what idol worship is, why it was (apparently) forbidden, and why Christians/Muslims are idol worshipers in idolatrous cults responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions.

That is rot and nonsense. Better would be: one man to one woman. Not elevating a one man to eleven+ concubines to the highest possible standard. This will only manufacture brain rot in the form of sexual degeneracy (ie. pedophilia, which Muhammad was involved with, setting a state-sanctioned precedent for it).

That Jesus taught chastity as a requirement but Muhammad was of infidel nature is a conundrum in and of itself that escapes the Muhammadan mind given the fixation to women as sex objects in general. Hence the need to project this into the West and criticize it for what Islam is guilty of. This is really all Islam does; hence the sudden appearance and so-called rise of "Islamophobia" which is actually what Muslims/leaders have because they can't stand the reality that what they "believe" is not true, so they use forcible suppression (ie. fascism) by labeling whoever stirs up this Islamophobia in them as Islamophobic. Pure scapegoating - but not original/unique to Islam. They learned it from their ancestors the Jews who did/do the same (ie. Marxism).

I’m only interested in working towards peace so better you go your way and I go mine. Muhammad is a Prophet Of God not the things you accuse Him of. We’re you there? You only got that information from heresay.

 

[9-18-1]

I’m only interested in working towards peace so better you go your way and I go mine. Muhammad is a Prophet Of God not the things you accuse Him of. We’re you there? You only got that information from heresay.

Muhammad is not a prophet of any god - the Qur'an is forged from Christian strophic hymns and apocryphal texts. By virtue of this, as stated, the shahada is necessarily a false testimony contrary to the ten commandments.

Not a single Muslim alive today was there... but they still bear testimony of him being a prophet. You can't bear testimony of a dead man. Regarding "heresay" it is "heresay" that Muhammad was receiving revelations from an angel. As stated, the Qur'an is visibly and demonstrably forged. The expression b'ismil allah, al-rahmun al-rahim used to mean "in the name of god the father, god the son and god the spirit" in Syriac by the Christian speaking Arabs. The Qur'an was originally Syriac before "converted" into Arabic by poor scribes. All of this is outlined in the work of Luling and Luxenberg.

If satan requires "belief" in order that "believers" "believe" that satan is god, what is the first thing satan will try to make a virtue? Belief. What are Muslims? "Believers". In what? That the Qur'an is perfect when it is not, and a polygamous genocidal dictator is the highest idol humanity can aspire to.

This is insanity, and China is correct to designate Islam a mental illness - it is one, and those who apologize for it are equally subject. It is a death cult reflecting the tribal barbarism of the darkest ages of man. That you would even try to quote the Qur'an to prove a point is pathetic - it is man-made despite what you "believe" ie. wish to be true. That is what "believers" do: they only project what they want to be true and act based on that. It is like a psychosomatic state of sustained stupidity.

 

[charlie sc]

Ok. These passages cover all types of disbelievers who cannot be harmed or forced to change their beliefs. They are verbally warned though in various passages that their beliefs don’t lead to God.

Not to discriminate against non believers

4: 94 O you who believe! When you go forth in the way of God, be discerning, and say not unto him who offers you peace, “You are not a believer,” seeking the ephemeralities of the life of this world, for with God are abundant spoils.

Forced conversion forbidden

2:256

Let there be no compulsion in Religion.


Live and let live

109 SAY: O ye UNBELIEVERS! I worship not that which ye worship, And ye do not worship that which I worship; I shall never worship that which ye worship, Neither will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your religion; to me my religion.

Not to tell untruths

2:42

And clothe not the truth with falsehood, and hide not the truth when ye know it

Return good for evil

41:34

Good deeds are not equal to the evil ones. Repel other's evil deeds with your good deeds. You will see that he with whom you had enmity, will become your close friend.

So the crux of the Quran is to be merciful and peaceful to all but treat with justice those who attack the innocent. So non believers can’t be attached or forced to convert. However if they attack Muslims then Muslims have the right of self defence.

I’m disappointed but not surprised this would happen. How am I able to have a conversation with anyone if they are not honest with themselves and/or are incapable of even mentioning passages in their ideology that they/others may not like?

Again, what’s else does the Quran and/or Hadiths say about polytheists/disbelievers?
I’m not just talking about rules or guides for behaviour.

IF you are still unable to answer this, perhaps you should take a long look at yourself and examine why this is so difficult.

 

[sooda]

"BELIEF" is not a virtue - I don't "believe" things.

This said I know the Qur'an is forged and did not come from a god. I've researched the origins of the Qur'an and traced it back to its original sources, which I have read and cross-referenced with the Qur'an, and found it to be certain that the book is a forgery.

This is not a "belief", this is known to me. It takes "belief" to "believe" that a merchant war lord was receiving revelations from an angel.

However again, Islam is not the first to make such a claim. The same is/was made for the Torah, which itself utilizes 4 sources with a 5th redactor. I also know that the historical "Moses" was based on the Egyptian Akhunatun who lived a parallel life, got kicked out of Egypt with his followers of his Atun monotheism.

This mixed with the Canaanite tribes and became Judaism.



Oh, so you're a racist too. Nationalism doesn't have anything to do with skin color - only racists normalize this expression in accordance with the hatred generated by Islam. Islam has carried out more terrorist attacks in places of worship than all faiths combined. The fact that Islam politically exploited this is telling of something much more sinister.

Again, the problem is the state of Islam itself. The Qur'an did not come from a god (it was compiled hundreds of miles north of Mecca), and Mecca did not even exist at the time of Muhammad as a city. The earlier Muslims used to face Petra.

Any religion which uses a male patriarchal central figure (especially a warlord one whose "example" is practically infidel) and spilling blood over criticisms of this idol is precisely what (real) idol worship is.

That Muslim women are blamed for the iniquity of men is precisely why the Biblical Adam was cast out of Eden: he tried to blame the woman for his own eating the fruit. That is exactly what Muhammadan men tend toward: blaming everything on the women and treating non-Muslim women (ie. women that do not "believe" Muhammad is a role model) as war spoils.

This is sub-human barbarism. Not that Muslims are sub-human (some are, but so are some non-Muslims) but the ideology of Islam as a personless state is pure patriarchal male-dominated phallic worship barbarism: the institutionalization of sexual degeneracy (ie. pedophilia) which rots the brain (ie. Eve gives the fruit to Adam).

All of this is in the first book of "Moses"... who was not even a Hebrew and did not lead a Potent exodus. The whole Abrahamic pantheon is built on lie upon lie, beginning with the Canaanites/Jews of antiquity post-Akhunatun.

Muslims don't believe Eve was to blame. In fact, they don't believe in original sin..

So you read Arabic... Where did you get hold of "original sources"?

 

[sooda]

I’m disappointed but not surprised this would happen. How am I able to have a conversation with anyone if they are not honest with themselves and/or are incapable of even mentioning passages in their ideology that they/others may not like?

Again, what’s else does the Quran and/or Hadiths say about polytheists/disbelievers?
I’m not just talking about rules or guides for behaviour.

IF you are still unable to answer this, perhaps you should take a long look at yourself and examine why this is so difficult.

Re: The Luling and Luxenberg Myths - Google Groups
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.religion.islam/BgXrLdrBl_U/My0...
Luxenberg's book as "...serious and exciting" work. Anyhow, down to Luxenberg. Like Yehuda Nevo before him, his book is extremely revolutionary and will take many years before its impact is felt. Nevertheless, Luxenberg's book has sparked two conferences (one in Germany and another in the United States). Unlike Nevo, Luxenberg's

 

[charlie sc]

Muslims don't believe Eve was to blame. In fact, they don't believe in original sin..

So you read Arabic... Where did you get hold of "original sources"?

What does Allah or Muslims think about or say about disbelievers and polytheists?

 

[sooda]

What does Allah or Muslims think about or say about disbelievers and polytheists?

You should probably follow the thread.

Reviews of Hagarism by Patricia Crone and Michael Cook

 

[paarsurrey]

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?

"Is there some kind of Islamic reform possible?"

Islam is already under reformation under the peaceful Ahmadiyya Islam, under leadership of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908.
Please

Regards

 

[charlie sc]

You should probably follow the thread.

Reviews of Hagarism by Patricia Crone and Michael Cook

Your inability to answer a simple question without deflecting literally destroys any sensibility from your side. I’m not even trying to trap you nor do I know how the conversation will pan out.

This inability to even discuss what I’m asking, to me, says more about how dogmatic ideologies create such cognitive dissonance in individuals that they have no choice but to deflect. This is very sad indeed.

 

[9-18-1]

Muslims don't believe Eve was to blame. In fact, they don't believe in original sin..

It doesn't matter what Muslims "believe" - "belief" is not a virtue. The story itself indicates that Adam blames Eve for his own eating. The point is they hypocritically call Moses a prophet (he didn't even write the Torah) yet do not read/understand it. Man blaming woman for his own iniquity is precisely what is being indicated in the story, and is precisely what Islam does: exports all of the iniquities of men onto women. This is where the hijab comes from: women being blamed for enticing men. This is related to Eve (sex organ) giving the fruit to Adam (brain) - when the lower organ commands/controls the higher organ, this leads to sexual degeneracy / death. That is exactly what Muhammad represents: polygamy/infidelity, degradation and sexual objectification of women.

So you read Arabic... Where did you get hold of "original sources"?

The original sources are not in Arabic... they are in Syriac. I understand the Semitic root system and studied how the languages evolved. The Hebrew language is 22 different perspectives of the same form:

These belongs to www.meru.org. When I read the Torah I have a model in my hand/mind and rotate it according to whatever letter comes next. How the form moves determines the shape/meaning (and sound) of the phrase. Reading the original Torah without the markings yields a very different reading from what one gets from even a marked Torah, let alone an English translation of a marked Torah.

I learned about this so I could test the claims being made by the various religions by reading what Moses is alleged to have wrote in his own language. After having done this, I find Islam is about as far away as one can get from "true" Abrahamism.

The Syriac sources are various apocrypha that were scattered about the M/E which were considered heretical to canon; not to mention all of the Talmudic sources:

this guy is being persecuted for revealing the Qur'an is completely forged.

 

[sooda]

"BELIEF" is not a virtue - I don't "believe" things.

This said I know the Qur'an is forged and did not come from a god. I've researched the origins of the Qur'an and traced it back to its original sources, which I have read and cross-referenced with the Qur'an, and found it to be certain that the book is a forgery.

This is not a "belief", this is known to me. It takes "belief" to "believe" that a merchant war lord was receiving revelations from an angel.

However again, Islam is not the first to make such a claim. The same is/was made for the Torah, which itself utilizes 4 sources with a 5th redactor. I also know that the historical "Moses" was based on the Egyptian Akhunatun who lived a parallel life, got kicked out of Egypt with his followers of his Atun monotheism.

This mixed with the Canaanite tribes and became Judaism.



Oh, so you're a racist too. Nationalism doesn't have anything to do with skin color - only racists normalize this expression in accordance with the hatred generated by Islam. Islam has carried out more terrorist attacks in places of worship than all faiths combined. The fact that Islam politically exploited this is telling of something much more sinister.

Again, the problem is the state of Islam itself. The Qur'an did not come from a god (it was compiled hundreds of miles north of Mecca), and Mecca did not even exist at the time of Muhammad as a city. The earlier Muslims used to face Petra.

Any religion which uses a male patriarchal central figure (especially a warlord one whose "example" is practically infidel) and spilling blood over criticisms of this idol is precisely what (real) idol worship is.

That Muslim women are blamed for the iniquity of men is precisely why the Biblical Adam was cast out of Eden: he tried to blame the woman for his own eating the fruit. That is exactly what Muhammadan men tend toward: blaming everything on the women and treating non-Muslim women (ie. women that do not "believe" Muhammad is a role model) as war spoils.

This is sub-human barbarism. Not that Muslims are sub-human (some are, but so are some non-Muslims) but the ideology of Islam as a personless state is pure patriarchal male-dominated phallic worship barbarism: the institutionalization of sexual degeneracy (ie. pedophilia) which rots the brain (ie. Eve gives the fruit to Adam).

All of this is in the first book of "Moses"... who was not even a Hebrew and did not lead a Potent exodus. The whole Abrahamic pantheon is built on lie upon lie, beginning with the Canaanites/Jews of antiquity post-Akhunatun.

You wrote: " I also know that the historical "Moses" was based on the Egyptian Akhunatun who lived a parallel life, got kicked out of Egypt with his followers of his Atun monotheism."

I would LOVE to see your proof. In fact, I am sure the whole world would like to see your evidence.

 

[sooda]

Your inability to answer a simple question without deflecting literally destroys any sensibility from your side. I’m not even trying to trap you nor do I know how the conversation will pan out.

This inability to even discuss what I’m asking, to me, says more about how dogmatic ideologies create such cognitive dissonance in individuals that they have no choice but to deflect. This is very sad indeed.

There's nothing to discuss.. @9-18-1 has special knowledge, but no evidence and doesn't even understand the rudiments of Islam. Hagarism is completely without merit.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I’m disappointed but not surprised this would happen. How am I able to have a conversation with anyone if they are not honest with themselves and/or are incapable of even mentioning passages in their ideology that they/others may not like?

Again, what’s else does the Quran and/or Hadiths say about polytheists/disbelievers?
I’m not just talking about rules or guides for behaviour.

IF you are still unable to answer this, perhaps you should take a long look at yourself and examine why this is so difficult.

I gave you verses with regards to unbelievers that they cannot be compelled to change religion or be harmed.

 

[9-18-1]

You wrote: " I also know that the historical "Moses" was based on the Egyptian Akhunatun who lived a parallel life, got kicked out of Egypt with his followers of his Atun monotheism."

I would LOVE to see your proof. In fact, I am sure the whole world would like to see your evidence.

Don't be so sure: there is a lot of information available about it.

This guy wrote a book (which I have):

and there is Freud:

Moses and Monotheism - Wikipedia

The book consists of three essays and is an extension of Freud’s work on psychoanalytic theory as a means of generating hypotheses about historical events. Freud hypothesizes that Moses was not Hebrew, but actually born into Ancient Egyptian nobility and was probably a follower of Akhenaten, an ancient Egyptian monotheist. The biblical story of Moses is contradicted by Freud, who retells the events, claiming that Moses led only his close followers into freedom (during an unstable period in Egyptian history after Akhenaten's death ca. 1350 BCE), that they subsequently killed Moses in rebellion, and still later joined with another monotheistic tribe in Midian who worshipped a volcano god they called Yahweh. Freud supposed that the god of Moses was fused with Yahweh, and that the deeds of Moses were ascribed[vague] to a Midianite priest also called Moses.[vague][1] Freud explains that centuries after the murder of the Egyptian Moses, the rebels regretted their action, thus forming the concept of the Messiah as a hope for the return of Moses as the Saviour of the Israelites. Freud said that the guilt from the murder of Moses is inherited through the generations; this guilt then drives the Jews to religion to make them feel better.

Had Freud had access to the archeological reliefs we have now he might well have likewise deduced that rather than Moses having been a follower of Akhunatun, they were the same person, eliminating the need for a Midianite.

In either event, there was no potent delivery lead by a Hebrew Moses under direction by a potent god. An Egyptian monotheist got kicked out of Egypt and was allowed to take his followers with him. The Jews falsified history in the Torah (in order to justify their own existence) and this is why we have the Canaanite god el in Genesis: b'resh'yis bara el...

The Torah has 5 authors: 4, and a 5th redactor. J which reflected the Yahvist political worldview, E which reflected the Eloist political worldview, P which reflected Priestly writings and D for Deuteronomy (an old law found and infused/retrofitted). These were redacted under R which was likely Ezra.

What is certain is the Torah/Bible did not come from any god, which also implicates the Qur'an given it regards the Torah as such.

That is the extent to which humanity is enslaved under these "belief" systems. What is funny (at least to me) is the two trees in the garden represent the two possible states of "I know..." and "I believe..." rendering "belief" and "satan" one and the same thing.

This is why I have said, and will repeat:

"Belief" is simply not a virtue,
not "simply believing" is.

Knowing who/what/where/why/when and how *not* to "BELIEVE" is a virtue over "BELIEVING" something that may not be true, such as... the Qur'an is the perfect eternal word of god, which is not true. This is why 100's of millions are dead - the Torah having made the same claim before it. Judaism and Islam are actually not different per se: both making the same false claim, rendering them identical in that regard, which has caused immense human suffering - the latter being the very thing I personally undertake to understand the real (real) source of.

It is "BELIEF"-based religion.

 

[9-18-1]

There's nothing to discuss.. @9-18-1 has special knowledge, but no evidence and doesn't even understand the rudiments of Islam. Hagarism is completely without merit.

I understand Islam on a more "rudimentary" level than most Muslims do: they don't 'know' their own history, because their own leaders lie to them about it.

Early Muslims post-Muhammad used to face and pray toward Petra. Hardly a single Muslim knows this today. They are indoctrinated as having constantly been persecuted by everyone else, when in fact the opposite is true. 100's of millions were killed by the sword in N.A., India and parts of Europe by aggressive Muhammadan invasions. It really was a bloodbath. Christianity did the same before it.

I understand what the precepts are - but I also understand how "belief"-based empires are structured to most effectively manufacture and retain obedience to the "cause" of the empire. Islam relies on re-living the life of Muhammad over and over, hence the constant invasion (presently global). The end-goal is global conquest for Islam: always has been, always will be. This, along with Judaism are the roots of fascism, socialism and Marxism. Any "belief"-based state (especially one which utilizes a patriarchal male central figure as a model for humanity) which retains a "belief" that is not true, thus must be covered, will necessarily resort to forcible suppression of criticisms - for any adequate criticism that reveals a falsity which collapses the entire empire.

This is where/why fascism exists - protection of the 'state'.
This is why "Islamophobia" exists - protection of the 'state' by labeling anyone/everyone who criticizes Islam/Muhammad/Qur'an (in accordance with sharia, which is a man-made law but Muslims "BELIEVE" it is from god) as having the phobia, when in reality it is the 'state' that owns the fear.
This is why Islam envies non-Muslims' states (ie. racial hatred, socialism etc,): anyone who suffers less than the Muslim suffers is envied by the Muslim. That is how envy works: someone suffers (themselves) but tries to make someone else responsible for causing their own suffering.

The precepts are there for a reason - control.

Now here is the tragic part: the Muslim honestly "BELIEVES" they are doing the right thing by fighting against so-called "man-made" laws and replacing them with so-called god's law. In reality, they are replacing 21st century man-made laws with 7th century man-made barbaric ones. They are doing this forcibly and with intense religious fervor, and it will be/is becoming a humanitarian crisis. Many mosques are stockpiling weapons (a lot of weapons caches seized at the southern US border) and a global Muslim Brotherhood jihad plot is being uncovered in the US. This is why Donald trump very recently indicated designating the M.B. a terrorist organization: there is enough evidence now to prove it is engaging in a global jihad against "unbelieving" nations.

And most people are still asleep worshiping their books and idols - it is pathetic, really. But it is a part of the jihad - get people fighting one another, identified with ones own "belief"/emotion rendering people easy to control through outrage. All of the same tactics being used generation after generation from the same source, and people still haven't figured it out.

The problem is "BELIEF" - nothing more, nothing less.

 

[sooda]

I understand Islam on a more "rudimentary" level than most Muslims do: they don't 'know' their own history, because their own leaders lie to them about it.

Early Muslims post-Muhammad used to face and pray toward Petra. Hardly a single Muslim knows this today. They are indoctrinated as having constantly been persecuted by everyone else, when in fact the opposite is true. 100's of millions were killed by the sword in N.A., India and parts of Europe. It really was a bloodbath. Christianity did the same before it.

I understand what the precepts are - but I also understand how "belief"-based empires are structured to most effectively manufacture and retain obedience to the "cause" of the empire. Islam relies on re-living the life of Muhammad over and over, hence the constant invasion (presently global). The end-goal is global conquest for Islam: always has been, always will be. This, along with Judaism are the roots of fascism, socialism and Marxism. Any "belief"-based state (especially one which utilizes a patriarchal male central figure as a model for humanity) which retains a "belief" that is not true, thus must be covered, will necessarily resort to forcible suppression of criticisms - for any adequate criticism that reveals a falsity which collapse the entire empire.

This is where/why fascism exists - protection of the 'state'.
This is why "Islamophobia" exists - protection of the 'state' by labeling anyone/everyone who criticizes Islam/Muhammad/Qur'an (in accordance with sharia, which is a man-made law but Muslims "BELIEVE" it is from god) as having the phobia, when in reality it is the 'state' that owns the fear.
This is why Islam envies non-Muslims states (ie. racial hatred, socialism etc,): anyone who suffers less than the Muslim suffers is envied by the Muslim. That is how envy works: someone suffers (themselves) but tries to make someone else responsible for causing their own suffering.

The precepts are there for a reason - control.

Well, it is certain that you are 33 years old and have an ego the size of Mt Rushmore.

 

[9-18-1]

Well, it is certain that you are 33 years old and have an ego the size of Mt Rushmore.

On the contrary - I don't take offense so easily. Only people with an ego intact take offense and/or project others as having one that upsets their own.