Why is Islam so dangerous?

[sooda]

It's tough for me now really. I could read very well cause I was taught to read and recite the Quran when I was young. The reading & reciting were focused a lot more than the understanding though. I can remember, I used to read the translation more so I was given another one, containing only Arabic. As I was growing up, I had lots of questions and kinda went through theism, atheism or agnosticism phase. I stopped reading Quran for a long time. It will take a bit of practice to read like before.

Are you an Arab?

 

[Mark Sinista]

Are you an Arab?

Nah.

 

[sooda]

Nah.

Why were you studying Arabic?

 

[Mark Sinista]

Why were you studying Arabic?

In my country (which is a Muslim majority but not a Islamic State and didn't implement Shariah Law thankfully), traditional muslim families teach their children how to recite the Quran from an early age. They believe, to be a good Muslim, one must recite the Quran.

 

[sooda]

In my country (which is a Muslim majority but not a Islamic State and didn't implement Shariah Law thankfully), traditional muslim families teach their children how to recite the Quran from an early age. They believe, to be a good Muslim, one must recite the Quran.

Yeah? Well, that makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Mark Sinista]

Yeah? Well, that makes perfect sense to me.

Sorry I didn't understand. which made perfect sense?

 

[sooda]

Sorry I didn't understand. which made perfect sense?

You learning the koran.

 

[Mark Sinista]

You learning the koran.

Oh I see.

 

[Road Warrior]

It did.. The invasion of Iraq was a huge blunder ,, Diplomats, historians, oilmen, the Arabs, most Europeans all knew it would be a disaster.

A blunder, yes, but not the cause of radical Islam.

 

[sooda]

A blunder, yes, but not the cause of radical Islam.

ISIS was made up of Baathist Sunnis who had been in Saddam's army and were confined to Camp Bucca prison. Putting Maliki in office was also extraordinarily stupid.

 

[Road Warrior]

ISIS was made up of Baathist Sunnis who had been in Saddam's army and were confined to Camp Bucca prison. Putting Maliki in office was also extraordinarily stupid.

So? Are you declaring that radical Islam was caused by the US invasion of Iraq? Yes or no, please.

Or do you accept it already existed and all the US did was throw gasoline on a fire?

 

[Mark Sinista]

Possible. FWIW, I do not believe our unilateral attack of Iraq caused radical Islam, but I certainly believe it didn't help solve the problem..

I didn't say 'created' rather 'contributed'. Also I didn't use the term 'Radical Islam' but specifically 'ISIS'. I am not denying Al-Qaeda existed before.

 

[sooda]

So? Are you declaring that radical Islam was caused by the US invasion of Iraq? Yes or no, please.

Or do you accept it already existed and all the US did was throw gasoline on a fire?

Yes.. It was greatly expanded because of the invasion of Iraq.

I resigned the Republican party before the invasion. I certainly knew it was going to be a disaster that would make Iran ascendant ...

Cheney lied to King Fahd and tricked him.... The Arabs know that too.

 

[Raymann]

I am new here and still figuring things out. I didn't realize you replied. So my apologies for responding late.

No need for apologies, thanks for your reply.

Mark Sinista said: ↑
John Earnest, "alleged" synagogue shooter, who "allegedly" went to Church regularly, talks about Christianity, wrote a seven-page letter spelling out his core beliefs: that Jewish people, guilty in his view of faults ranging from killing Jesus to controlling the media, deserved to die. That his intention to kill Jews would glorify God.

Raymann said: ↑
Can you provide proof of Christians committing terrorist attacks in the name of Jesus or Christianity?

That news was from The Washington Post. Still, you asked to provide proof. Why?

Read my last sentence again. He never claimed doing it in the name of Christianity. As a matter of fact, he denied doing it for religious reasons. The press assumed it because of the 7-page letter.
I don't believe he did it in the name of Christianity because Christianity doesn't instruct its followers to hate or even worst to go and kill members of other religions.
John Earnest acted on his own, he read about history and obviously took it upon himself to do justice (in his crazy mind).
He was not trained to do his terrorist attack by Christian scriptures or by church's Sunday sermons.
He was a lone wolf (as this type of criminals are called)
His actions are not rewarded with paradise by Jesus Christ.
There's a difference between a trained terrorist that follows certain religious scriptures and act upon them.
John Earnest didn't do that.

First, you try to establish the fact that terrorism is Muslim specialty as if they are the only terrorists around.

The second part of the sentence (in bold letters) is your own conclusion, I never said Muslims are the ONLY ONES committing terrorism. You can be a specialist even if you're not the only one.

Then, you say ahhhh, they are not the only ones that do that, but...THEY BLOW THEMSELVES UP RIGHT?

See what I mean? You should have waited for this part of the sentence before drawing the wrong conclusions.

How do you define terrorism? Does "killing innocent people but not sacrificing yourself" not meet the criteria? Different terrorist groups have different methods. Following one doesn't make one special or master of terrorism. They are all simply terrorists.

What makes Islamic terrorism different is the use of suicide bombers as one of the most deadly and dangerous tactics.

I would use the following simple definition for Terrorism: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims"
terrorism | Definition of terrorism in English by Lexico Dictionaries

John Earnest didn't have any political aims, it was more likely a hate crime but if you want to call it terrorism is fine with me but it was not a full-fledged terrorist attack.

It isn't. Why do you think it is? (dangerous)

We've written 52 pages so far on the topic. If you care reading some of them you'll find some answers.
If you still have some specific questions I'll be glad to respond to them.

No question he was nuts.(Osama Bin Laden), but he was pretty successful.. Look at the hate sites dedicated to hating Islam.

On the other hand, how about all the jihadist groups who followed the steps of Al Qaida. How about ISIS and Boko Haram?
The Internet Hate groups don't commit suicide bombings nor mass killings nor beheading, nor mass rapes nor mass abductions, etc, etc, etc.

 

[sooda]

No need for apologies, thanks for your reply.

Mark Sinista said: ↑
John Earnest, "alleged" synagogue shooter, who "allegedly" went to Church regularly, talks about Christianity, wrote a seven-page letter spelling out his core beliefs: that Jewish people, guilty in his view of faults ranging from killing Jesus to controlling the media, deserved to die. That his intention to kill Jews would glorify God.

Raymann said: ↑
Can you provide proof of Christians committing terrorist attacks in the name of Jesus or Christianity?



Read my last sentence again. He never claimed doing it in the name of Christianity. As a matter of fact, he denied doing it for religious reasons. The press assumed it because of the 7-page letter.
I don't believe he did it in the name of Christianity because Christianity doesn't instruct its followers to hate or even worst to go and kill members of other religions.
John Earnest acted on his own, he read about history and obviously took it upon himself to do justice (in his crazy mind).
He was not trained to do his terrorist attack by Christian scriptures or by church's Sunday sermons.
He was a lone wolf (as this type of criminals are called)
His actions are not rewarded with paradise by Jesus Christ.
He actually denied his motives were religiously related. The press and the seven-page letter came to that conclusion.
There's a difference between a trained terrorist that follows certain religious scriptures and act upon them.
John Earnest didn't do that.


The second part of the sentence (in bold letters) is your own conclusion, I never said Muslims are the ONLY ONES committing terrorism. You can be a specialist even if you're not the only one.


See what I mean? You should have waited for this part of the sentence before drawing the wrong conclusions.


What makes Islamic terrorism different is the use of suicide bombers as one of the most deadly and dangerous tactics.

I would use the following simple definition for Te: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims"
terrorism | Definition of terrorism in English by Lexico Dictionaries

John Earnest didn't have any political aims, it was more likely a hate crime but if you want to call it terrorism is fine with me but it was not a full-fledged terrorist attack.

We've written 52 pages so far on the topic. If you care reading some of them you'll find some answers.
If you still have some specific questions I'll be glad to respond to them.

On the other hand, how about all the jihadist groups who followed the steps of Al Qaida. How about ISIS and Boko Haram?
The Internet Hate groups don't commit suicide bombings nor mass killings nor beheading, nor mass rapes nor mass abductions, etc, etc, etc.

Islam forbids killing anyone unless they attack Muslims and even then the rules of warfare are not what you'd expect.

ISIS and Boko Haram are disenfranchised groups of ignorant losers, drug addicts, drunks who don't know anything about their religion and they are a far bigger threat to Muslims than they are to us.

 

[Mark Sinista]

Islam forbids killing anyone unless they attack Muslims and even then the rules of warfare are not what you'd expect.

ISIS and Boko Haram are disenfranchised groups of ignorant losers, drug addicts, drunks who don't know anything about their religion and they are a far bigger threat to Muslims than they are to us.

I have seen this happening in my own city. They actually don't discriminate against Muslims or Non-muslims. They kill innocents. They are using the name of Islam for political agendas. They kill people while they are praying in mosques. I feel disgusted when someone say they are muslims. People think they are only against non-muslims. How do you explain killling their muslim brothers!

 

[Mark Sinista]

Muslims are not allowed to harm unbelievers unless in self-defense and attacked or threatened first.

[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.
[2:191] You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers.
[2:192] If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
[2:193] You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.
[8:61] If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.
[4:90] ... if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then GOD gives you no excuse to fight them.

Also, you have to be absolutely sure before you strike.

[4:94] O you who believe, if you strike in the cause of GOD, you shall be absolutely sure. Do not say to one who offers you peace, "You are not a believer," seeking the spoils of this world. For GOD possesses infinite spoils. Remember that you used to be like them, and GOD blessed you. Therefore, you shall be absolutely sure (before you strike). GOD is fully Cognizant of everything you do.

The famous “verse of the sword” is used by critics of Islam and extremists to justify that Islam promotes violence against non-muslims.

“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.” – [Quran 9:5]

They simply copy-paste the verse depriving it of its context. if you read the whole thing, everything becomes clear.

9:1 [This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.
9:2 So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.
9:3 And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away– then know that you will not cause failure to Allah . And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment.
9:4 Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].
9:5 And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find themand capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
9:6 And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.
9:7 How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].
9:8 How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient.
9:9 They have exchanged the signs of Allah for a small price and averted [people] from His way. Indeed, it was evil that they were doing.
9:10 They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors.
9:11 But if they repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, then they are your brothers in religion; and We detail the verses for a people who know.
9:12 And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease.
9:13 Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun the attack upon you the first time?Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers.
9:14 Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people.

If we read the verse 1, we can understand that there was a treaty that the Arab pagans broke who attacked the Muslims first. There was a clear declaration of war and they were given four months to reconsider what they will do. Fight the Muslims or leave peacefully.

If we read verse 9:6, it shows that if they asked for protection, they were to be safely escorted to their safe place.

I mean how more considerate can you get than this at a war?

It was for a very specific type of circumstances and in the event of a possible upcoming war.

By no means, the sword verse is a permission to attack non-muslims anywhere they are seen.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Do you attribute the highest, most successful civilizations with Christianity or do you consider religion a side issue to the fact the northern countries conquered the world? Maybe you think there are other factors involved. What do you believe them to be?

I see religion and science as being two essential foundations for the advancement of civilisation. One concerns the moral development, the other material. Both are essential and complimentary to one another. Science without religion leads to materialism. Religion without science superstition.

I see religion as being like a tree that bears fruit through the seasons. Through the 800s to the 1300s we had the Islamic Golden Age. Not long after we had the European Renaissance ignited in part by the influence of Islam. These periods were like summer seasons for Islam and Christianity.

Now religion has fallen into disrepute whether Christianity or Islam. The vitality of men’s belief in God in every land is dying. Material civilisation flourishes but there is widespread confusion and disagreement in regards what constitutes living a moral life.

 

[Road Warrior]

Yes.. It was greatly expanded because of the invasion of Iraq.

I resigned the Republican party before the invasion. I certainly knew it was going to be a disaster that would make Iran ascendant ...

Cheney lied to King Fahd and tricked him.... The Arabs know that too.

Disagreed, but I do think some US actions, as @Mark Sinista posted, "contributed" to the problem. Would radical Islam still be a problem if we'd never invaded Iraq? Of course, just like it was a problem in the 1990s all the way up to 9/11.

The problem was Iraq was that we needlessly mired ourselves in an occupation. The war wasn't necessary and we took down a doorstop to Iran.

 

[Shad]

Disagreed, but I do think some US actions, as @Mark Sinista posted, "contributed" to the problem. Would radical Islam still be a problem if we'd never invaded Iraq? Of course, just like it was a problem in the 1990s all the way up to 9/11.

The problem was Iraq was that we needlessly mired ourselves in an occupation. The war wasn't necessary and we took down a doorstop to Iran.

Part of the issue is the population. Hence why occupation was more successful in Japan and Germany