This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="themajormayor"]I hope you are equipped with a flame shield. You'll need it....Atheism is violent
LJS9502_basic
Stalin was an Atheist as were his many followers.. thus Atheists are all terrorists. This is using the logic of the same people who say all Muslims are terrorists.
What I don't understand is how people claim Islam to be entirely NON violent. That it does not advocate violence at all under any circumstances whatsoever. I could look up and post quotes that promote violent retributive action from the Q'uran, though then I'd be flooded by responses claiming I'm entirely looking at it out of context, as if for some reason viewing a violent quote IN context somehow all of a sudden makes it non-violent.
"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
That strikes me as fairly brutal. I don't care if it's all in defense of the faith, nor if it's wrapped in the most noble of intentions. It still advocates violence. I'd appreciate hearing how it doesn't, I've made this point before in other threads and no one has been able to explain this to me.
MirkoS77
I'll be happy to explain it to you.
One prime example is the passage that states, "And fight for the cause of God those who fight you. But do not be aggressive. Surely God does not like the aggressors." [2:190]
This can clearly be taken out of context; if one were to simply reference it by only saying "And fight for the cause of God," and therefore take it out of context obviously everyone would get the wrong idea. However, you have to look at the passage as a whole, not stop mid-verse. What it means is only to fight if someone else were to attack you first, plain and simple. Right after this, it commands not to be an aggressor, or be the first to transgress with an offensive attack without having first been ambushed or attacked. This is what people mean when they say it must be placed in proper context to be understood.
Another example, "Kill them wherever you find them and drive them out from wherever they drove you out." [2.190-191] "But if they desist, God is truly all-forgiving, merciful." [2:192]
I think it's clear here that one could very easily pick out from this verse and quote it by saying, "Kill them wherever you find them and drive them out," but as this is taken out of context, it gives a completely false conception. It is really trying to say that this type of killing is only permissible as a rebuttal if it was done to you first and you plan on reclaiming what was taken from you. Furthermore, when the enemy ceases to fight, they should be forgiven rather than further proceeding with warfare. Since God is merciful, warfare is not the primary way to go.
I'd say these verses debunk the myths rather directly, wouldn't you say?
It's cool to hate Christianity and the US.....or at least that is the backward thinking here.why does gamespot hate christianity so much..its so sad that its funny
cee1gee
[QUOTE="DarkOfKnight"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Ah quote mining....let's start here. Show me where he advocated using violence because you have not done so with those quotes. Basically they mean there will be conflict due to His new teachings. You're up....LJS9502_basic:lol: Saying that anybody who loves their family more than him is not worthy of him is NOT saying there will be conflict due to his teachings. He is saying that if you love your family more than him you are NOT worthy of him, and since you need to be in order to get into heaven.......Yeah, not seeing anything positive here. You're up..... So you have nothing. Thanks for playing...we have a consolation prize for you at the door.;)So you can't prove me wrong on that comment? Come on and at least try rather than just giving up on me like this. You obviously disagree with the interpretation, now show me why I am wrong on this and it doesn't say what I said it did. You're still up....
Well re: Jihad In fact, based on the sword-verses as well as countless other Qur'anic verses and oral traditions attributed to Muhammad, Islam's learned officials, sheikhs, muftis, and imams throughout the ages have all reached consensus-binding on the entire Muslim community-that Islam is to be at perpetual war with the non-Muslim world until the former subsumes the latter. Indeed, it is widely held by Muslim scholars that since the sword-verses are among the final revelations on the topic of Islam's relationship to non-Muslims, that they alone have abrogated some 200 of the Qur'an's earlier and more tolerant verses, such as "no compulsion is there in religion."[9] Famous Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) admired in the West for his "progressive" insights, also puts to rest the notion that jihad is defensive warfare:JustBeYourself
Do you even know what "Jihad" means? It has nothing to do with warfare. The root meaning of the word is "struggle". In it's correct context it has nothing to do with any form of violence.
Do you even know what "Jihad" means? It has nothing to do with warfare. The root meaning of the word is "struggle". In it's correct context it has nothing to do with any form of violence.Asim90Extreme Islam has warped the word.
[QUOTE="Asim90"]Do you even know what "Jihad" means? It has nothing to do with warfare. The root meaning of the word is "struggle". In it's correct context it has nothing to do with any form of violence.DarkOfKnightExtreme Islam has warped the word. No, people trying to pass of Islam as more progressive and peaceful than it is has warped the word ;-)
Do you even know what "Jihad" means? It has nothing to do with warfare. The root meaning of the word is "struggle". In it's correct context it has nothing to do with any form of violence.Asim90LOL @ this post. Like "jihad" can't have more than one meaning or something. "Jihad" is one basic word that means several things, "holy war" is one of those meanings.
and we have * Courtney Love (a public figure and a buddhist) *King Herod (a madman who murdered his own family, babies and many rabbis)Except for Buddhists and Jews, all the religions kunts.
Ilovegames1992
LOL @ this post. Like "jihad" can't have more than one meaning or something. "Jihad" is one basic word that means several things, "holy war" is one of those meanings.JustBeYourself
What are you talking about? "Jihad" means "to struggle'... the end.
Now, it's true that some may use it to class a war as an action of Jihad. For instance fighting off an unjust attacker constitutes a form of struggling. Another example could be resisting the urge to tell a lie, in Islam that too is an act of Jihad as are countless others.
Hence, it can take many forms. It has one meaning, but the application depends on the situation and the circumstances. Attributing the term solely to warfare or violence is simply incorrect.
INo, people trying to pass of Islam as more progressive and peaceful than it is has warped the word ;-)JustBeYourself:facepalm: No, just no. Jihad is NOT a holy war and is nothing more than the struggle to be a muslim. It is a personal devotion to islam mostly involving spiritual discipline. In arabic it means struggle and most Islamic scholars focus on a non-militant aspect of it.
I wasn't trying to attribute the term solely to warfare. But the facts remain.. re: Jihad Based on the sword-verses as well as countless other Qur'anic verses and oral traditions attributed to Muhammad, Islam's learned officials, sheikhs, muftis, and imams throughout the ages have all reached consensus-binding on the entire Muslim community-that Islam is to be at perpetual war with the non-Muslim world until the former subsumes the latter. Indeed, it is widely held by Muslim scholars that since the sword-verses are among the final revelations on the topic of Islam's relationship to non-Muslims, that they alone have abrogated some 200 of the Qur'an's earlier and more tolerant verses, such as "no compulsion is there in religion."[9] Famous Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) admired in the West for his "progressive" insights, also puts to rest the notion that jihad is defensive warfare: "In the Muslim community, the holy war (jihad) is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force...The other religion groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense. They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people. That is why the israelites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority (e.g. a caliphate). Their only concern was to establish their own religion (not spread it to the nations)...But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations [10]" Modern authorities agree. The encyclopedia of Islam's entry for "jihad" by Emilie Tyan states that "the spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general...Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam...Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad (warfare to spread Islam) can be eliminated." Iraqi jurist Majid Khaduri (1909-2007), after defining jihad as warfare, writes that "jihad...is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim commnity." And of course, Muslim legal manuals written in Arabic are even more explicit. http://www.raymondibrahim.com/7358/are-judaism-and-christianity-as-violent-as-islam Islam is inherently violent and is meant to keep expanding until the entire world bends to its will. That's why its a dangerous religion to keep around and why the world would be much safer without it. Its kind of ridiculous to see you whitewash a religion and a history by claiming that jihad has no darker, more threatening connotation than "struggle".JustBeYourself
Jihad never meant "Holy War," why can't you just look it up in the Qur'an yourself to make sure you have the most authentic response?
Is that your best attempt at a rebuttal to that?JustBeYourself
In short, yes. I don't even care how much shorter/less detailed mine was than yours. Clearly these morons you're getting your facts from don't know the first thing about Jihad. If they knew what it was, they'd have learned it from the Qur'an itself (where are their citations from it?) and therefore they wouldn't be saying anything about this "holy war" crap.
Seriously, the best way to make a rebuttal: cite the Qur'an.
Perhaps you'd like to read what I've written instead of just facepalming and trying to act superior. The sources I've provided are much more convincing than someone who "facepalms". No one is denying that Jihad refers to the struggle to be a Muslim, but its just flat out denial to say that there isn't a military side to the word.JustBeYourself:lol: I added way more to that comment then just a facepalm. And I am not acting superior, you are. You post was wrong, Jihad is NOT forcing people to become Muslims, but a defense of the Islamic state. The fact is YOU are trying to pass of Jihad as a massive holy war to force people to convert, which is wrong. Jihad does not allow Muslims to convert people by force or conquer other nations as you are trying to say. What a Jihad is not
There are small groups of radicals that exisist in every group (not just religoius)and they pervert the message and religion to their own goals and radical agendas. The important thing to know though is that these small groups do not represent the majoirty of people and they don't reflect the true values or teachings of the group that the radicals claim to apart of.
When you have to reach back centuries for your case, you know you don't have one. The ****ing crusades? Really? Not to mention there were plenty of Muslims doing some killing in those. But whatever.
And the slaughter of the indians was an expansionist conquest, not a religious thing.
When people say Islam is violent, they're talking about in the contemporary world.
Is that your best attempt at a rebuttal to that? Jihad has the side to it which is about struggling to be a good Muslim, but it also has the side to it which refers to the religious duty to spread Islam. You're going to have to try a little bit harder if you want to convince me otherwise. Raymond Ibrahim builds a pretty strong case, and I'm a bit more inclined to trust an Egyptian scholar fluent in Arabic who's studied Islam and Middle-Eastern history in detail.JustBeYourself
Please.. listen to what I'm telling you. Jihad means to struggle.. it has no violent connotations and has the word itself has nothing to do with promoting warfare. Read my previous posts. Jihad is a spiritual struggle for Muslims, for example when they fast in Ramadan, that is a form of Jihad.
If you want to discuss a muslims duty to spread Islam, that is called Da'Wah and and that is performed by educated Muslims and usually by scholars. Nowhere in Islam does it say that all Muslims should go out and force Islam on others. Da'Wah is an invitation.
There are no multiple sides to these terms, I think you are confused and maybe try expanding yourself beyond this Raymond chap.
LOL. That's what you've been reduced to then. "Uh that person must be a moron because his opinion is different from mine". Yeah, let's just ignore the fact that he's undoubtedly far more educated than you in the subject shall we? And apparently even one of the most respected Muslim scholars in history (Ibn Khaldun) is a moron in your eyes because he helps illustrate what Jihad means to the Muslim people.JustBeYourself
I'd say mine would be more reliable than someone who talks in circles. He's more educated than me? Interesting, you know this how? How do you know I've never studied the Qur'an throughout my childhood and attended numerous seminars from Muslim speakers and scholars (who are more educated on the subject than you could imagine) and learned about the Qur'anic verses in context and their meanings?
Your argument is that because this guy seems to know a lot from what he says about Islam (despite seemingly never citing its true source) then he must be right, end of discussion. All the while, this is the same person who has claimed that Jihad has "two meanings" or "two sides" and I'm expected to believe he truly knows about its meanings within the Qur'an...all I can say is, that just shows how much he really knows.
I'm sorry, but for the sake of credibility I won't agree to your points or find them legitimate until you quote the Qur'an with citations in context. The purpose of this discussion, believe it or not, is to discuss the actual teachings of Islam based on its one authentic source, the Qur'an. So until you can find actual, original evidence from this source, this argument will only continue to be pushed by you into circles.
Why dont people realize Christianity and Catholicism are two different things?
00-Riddick-00
No, Catholicism is a branch of Christianity.
I'd say mine would be more reliable than someone who talks in circles. He's more educated than me? Interesting, you know this how? How do you know I've never studied the Qur'an throughout my childhood and attended numerous seminars from Muslim speakers and scholars (who are more educated on the subject than you could imagine) and learned about the Qur'anic verses in context and their meanings?Your argument is because because this guy seems to know a lot from what he says about Islam (despite seemingly never citing its true source) then he must be right, end of discussion. All the while, this is the same person who has claimed that Jihad has "two meanings" or "two sides" and I'm expected to believe he truly knows about its meanings within the Qur'an...all I can say is, that really just shows how much he really knows.I'm sorry, but for the sake of credibility I won't agree to your points or find them legitimate until you quote the Qur'an with citations in context. The purpose of this discussion, believe it or not, is to discuss the actual teachings of Islam based on its one authentic source, the Qur'an. So until you can find actual, original evidence from this source, this argument will only continue to be pushed by you into circles.Tigerman950Refer to my link, it actually has quran quotes in it. Like this one. Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. Qur'an 2:190
Oh dear. Why do you keep trying to convince me (and yourself?) that Jihad has a single meaning that only refers to spiritual struggle and nothing else? Its kind of sad. Is this how moderate Muslims really try to tell themselves that their religion is peaceful and that extremists are "warping" their precious, peaceful religion. I think the terrorists and extremists seem to be more in touch with their religion than people like you are. As Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini said "Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those people are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you". I'm sure we could argue over the meaning of "jihad" until the cows come home but there's really no denying that Jihad hasn't been used in the context of a war against unbelievers and the spread of Islam. As the dictionary of Islam defines Jihad " A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammed: It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Quran and in the traditions as a divine institituion, enjoinyed especially for the purpose of advancing Islam**** and of repelling evil from Muslims". (Source: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=U94S6N2zECAC&pg=PA87&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) No matter how hard YOU try, I can't really see myself be convinced by your words over the words of all the sources I've already displayed today. Maybe you're the one who needs to start reading up a bit more.Please.. listen to what I'm telling you. Jihad means to struggle.. it has no violent connotations and has the word itself has nothing to do with promoting warfare. Read my previous posts. Jihad is a spiritual struggle for Muslims, for example when they fast in Ramadan, that is a form of Jihad.
If you want to discuss a muslims duty to spread Islam, that is called Da'Wah and and that is performed by educated Muslims and usually by scholars. Nowhere in Islam does it say that all Muslims should go out and force Islam on others. Da'Wah is an invitation.
There are no multiple sides to these terms, I think you are confused and maybe try expanding yourself beyond this Raymond chap.
Asim90
[QUOTE="Asim90"]Oh dear. Why do you keep trying to convince me (and yourself?) that Jihad has a single meaning that only refers to spiritual struggle and nothing else? Its kind of sad. Is this how moderate Muslims really try to tell themselves that their religion is peaceful and that extremists are "warping" their precious, peaceful religion. I think the terrorists and extremists seem to be more in touch with their religion than people like you are. As Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini said "Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those people are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you". I'm sure we could argue over the meaning of "jihad" until the cows come home but there's really no denying that Jihad hasn't been used in the context of a war against unbelievers and the spread of Islam. As the dictionary of Islam defines Jihad " A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammed: It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Quran and in the traditions as a divine institituion, enjoinyed especially for the purpose of advancing Islam**** and of repelling evil from Muslims". (Source: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=U94S6N2zECAC&pg=PA87&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) No matter how hard YOU try, I can't really see myself be convinced by your words over the words of all the sources I've already displayed today. Maybe you're the one who needs to start reading up a bit more.Please.. listen to what I'm telling you. Jihad means to struggle.. it has no violent connotations and has the word itself has nothing to do with promoting warfare. Read my previous posts. Jihad is a spiritual struggle for Muslims, for example when they fast in Ramadan, that is a form of Jihad.
If you want to discuss a muslims duty to spread Islam, that is called Da'Wah and and that is performed by educated Muslims and usually by scholars. Nowhere in Islam does it say that all Muslims should go out and force Islam on others. Da'Wah is an invitation.
There are no multiple sides to these terms, I think you are confused and maybe try expanding yourself beyond this Raymond chap.
JustBeYourself
Funny how you decided not to respond to last post. That must be because you read it.
[QUOTE="Asim90"]Oh dear. Why do you keep trying to convince me (and yourself?) that Jihad has a single meaning that only refers to spiritual struggle and nothing else? Its kind of sad. Is this how moderate Muslims really try to tell themselves that their religion is peaceful and that extremists are "warping" their precious, peaceful religion. I think the terrorists and extremists seem to be more in touch with their religion than people like you are. As Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini said "Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those people are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you". I'm sure we could argue over the meaning of "jihad" until the cows come home but there's really no denying that Jihad hasn't been used in the context of a war against unbelievers and the spread of Islam. As the dictionary of Islam defines Jihad " A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammed: It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Quran and in the traditions as a divine institituion, enjoinyed especially for the purpose of advancing Islam**** and of repelling evil from Muslims". (Source: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=U94S6N2zECAC&pg=PA87&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) No matter how hard YOU try, I can't really see myself be convinced by your words over the words of all the sources I've already displayed today. Maybe you're the one who needs to start reading up a bit more.Please.. listen to what I'm telling you. Jihad means to struggle.. it has no violent connotations and has the word itself has nothing to do with promoting warfare. Read my previous posts. Jihad is a spiritual struggle for Muslims, for example when they fast in Ramadan, that is a form of Jihad.
If you want to discuss a muslims duty to spread Islam, that is called Da'Wah and and that is performed by educated Muslims and usually by scholars. Nowhere in Islam does it say that all Muslims should go out and force Islam on others. Da'Wah is an invitation.
There are no multiple sides to these terms, I think you are confused and maybe try expanding yourself beyond this Raymond chap.
JustBeYourself
I'm not trying hard to convince you, you're free to make up your own mind. I'm simply expressing what I know to you, you seem to have already made up your mind anyway. You say:
" I think the terrorists and extremists seem to be more in touch with their religion than people like you are. "
This to me signals that I'm dealing with an unreasonable and foolish person so I'll leave it at that.
This to me signals that I'm dealing with an unreasonable and foolish person so I'll leave it at that.Asim90And you seem to be incredibly naive who is intent on believing that Islam and Islamic history consists solely of love-ins, group hugs and fluffy bunnies. This kind of ignorance, denial and naivety isn't really conducive to the kind of forward-moving society I hope we're going to live in. If you're not willing to face the uglier sides of your religion or belief-system then really, what hope is there for us as a species to be released from ignorance and darkness? I see things as they are, sorry you can't. I'm sure its much easier to live in your world where everything is all candy and rainbows.
[QUOTE="Asim90"]This to me signals that I'm dealing with an unreasonable and foolish person so I'll leave it at that.JustBeYourselfAnd you seem to be incredibly naive who is intent on believing that Islam and Islamic history consists solely of love-ins, group hugs and fluffy bunnies. This kind of ignorance, denial and naivety isn't really conducive to the kind of forward-moving society I hope we're going to live in. If you're not willing to face the uglier sides of your religion or belief-system then really, what hope is there for us as a species to be released from ignorance and darkness? I see things as they are, sorry you can't. I'm sure its much easier to live in your world where everything is all candy and rainbows.
See, your argument will never have credibility if you keep dodging my previous question...
Funny how you decided not to respond to last post. That must be because you read it.Tigerman950That's because you're not SAYING anything. All you're capable of doing is asking me to cite the Koran. Maybe if I was fluent in Arabic and 100% grounded in all the Hadiths and the Koran itself, I'd be happy to. But just because you can rattle off the verses of the Koran better than I do doesn't make everything I say invalid. Although how much you actually do know indepth is somewhat unclear since you're really unable to rebuke anything that I've brought up. No doubt you feel it isn't worth your time because you feel you're so superior anyway. Its total nonsense to say someone has no credibility. I could sit here all night and cite the most well-sourced, educated people and in your opinion, that wouldn't be good enough. Pretty ridiculous approach to the matter. I'm leaving now. I never like to stick around these threads too long because its hardly likely I'm going to convince many people by continuing, especially not ridiculous "moderate" Muslims who can't see their religion for what it is. I'll leave the URL to this excellent article here again for you to read (you probably won't. But if by the offchance you do, ask yourself if you can really explain away everything that's in it. If you can't, maybe you should start thinking outside the box you think in that's been hardened like granite. http://www.raymondibrahim.com/7358/are-judaism-and-christianity-as-violent-as-islam I wish I could be like the average moron who buys the crap about Islam being a religion of peace. But I can't. I've been an atheist for as long as I can remember and have always approached every religious matter impartially. Sometimes you gotta just call a spade a spade and stop trying to pretend that everything is actually better than it is. When it comes down to it. Islam was a religion man-made in a hostile, backwards environment and it reflects that genesis. Its hardly a surprise to me that a 7th century religious and legal code formed in a desert backwater has elements of religious intolerance and encouragement of military violence. Maybe in a few hundred years, we can all get over this religion crap and look back and all have a good laugh at the hoops people jumped through trying to convince themselves and other people of their optimistic interpretations of Islam.
[QUOTE="Tigerman950"]Funny how you decided not to respond to last post. That must be because you read it.JustBeYourselfThat's because you're not SAYING anything. All you're capable of doing is asking me to cite the Koran. Maybe if I was fluent in Arabic and 100% grounded in all the Hadiths and the Koran itself, I'd be happy to. But just because you can rattle off the verses of the Koran better than I do doesn't make everything I say invalid. Although how much you actually do know indepth is somewhat unclear since you're really unable to rebuke anything that I've brought up. No doubt you feel it isn't worth your time because you feel you're so superior anyway. Its total nonsense to say someone has no credibility. I could sit here all night and cite the most well-sourced, educated people and in your opinion, that wouldn't be good enough. Pretty ridiculous approach to the matter.
Nice excuse, "I don't understand the language so I won't bother with any authentic source..." that's convenient. For the record there are English translations for it so it's not impossible for you to have at least some credibility (better than not having any at all). All I'm saying is I don't think any human source (even if they are supposedly as educated as you claim, though I strongly disbelieve it--that's why I don't consider it) can be more accurate, more truthful to what Islam really is than the Qur'an itself. And let's look at it for a second; the Qur'an is what contains the teachings of Islam, and the people who read and follow the Qur'an are therefore following the most authentic possible teachings that exist for (real) Islam.
And for the record, I can read/recite Arabic and I am 100% grounded in all the Hadiths and the Qur'an itself. So I know what I'm talking about when I refer to the Qur'an and authentic source material. The fact that you said that this is exactly what you CANNOT do seriously doesn't help your case with my question.
So, I guess I'll repeat myself: name ONE verse or passage from the Qur'an that suggests that Jihad has a double meaning of any kind, or any meaning other than being defined as struggling for the sake of God. Really, I'm waiting. I really want to see where it's defined as "Holy Warfare" or anything remotely close to that. Seriously, any day now.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="DarkOfKnight"]:lol: Saying that anybody who loves their family more than him is not worthy of him is NOT saying there will be conflict due to his teachings. He is saying that if you love your family more than him you are NOT worthy of him, and since you need to be in order to get into heaven.......Yeah, not seeing anything positive here. You're up.....DarkOfKnightSo you have nothing. Thanks for playing...we have a consolation prize for you at the door.;)So you can't prove me wrong on that comment? Come on and at least try rather than just giving up on me like this. You obviously disagree with the interpretation, now show me why I am wrong on this and it doesn't say what I said it did. You're still up.... Prove you wrong on what? You didn't provide anything.....
[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]
What I don't understand is how people claim Islam to be entirely NON violent. That it does not advocate violence at all under any circumstances whatsoever. I could look up and post quotes that promote violent retributive action from the Q'uran, though then I'd be flooded by responses claiming I'm entirely looking at it out of context, as if for some reason viewing a violent quote IN context somehow all of a sudden makes it non-violent.
"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
That strikes me as fairly brutal. I don't care if it's all in defense of the faith, nor if it's wrapped in the most noble of intentions. It still advocates violence. I'd appreciate hearing how it doesn't, I've made this point before in other threads and no one has been able to explain this to me.
Tigerman950
I'll be happy to explain it to you.
One prime example is the passage that states, "And fight for the cause of God those who fight you. But do not be aggressive. Surely God does not like the aggressors." [2:190]
This can clearly be taken out of context; if one were to simply reference it by only saying "And fight for the cause of God," and therefore take it out of context obviously everyone would get the wrong idea. However, you have to look at the passage as a whole, not stop mid-verse. What it means is only to fight if someone else were to attack you first, plain and simple. Right after this, it commands not to be an aggressor, or be the first to transgress with an offensive attack without having first been ambushed or attacked. This is what people mean when they say it must be placed in proper context to be understood.
Another example, "Kill them wherever you find them and drive them out from wherever they drove you out." [2.190-191] "But if they desist, God is truly all-forgiving, merciful." [2:192]
I think it's clear here that one could very easily pick out from this verse and quote it by saying, "Kill them wherever you find them and drive them out," but as this is taken out of context, it gives a completely false conception. It is really trying to say that this type of killing is only permissible as a rebuttal if it was done to you first and you plan on reclaiming what was taken from you. Furthermore, when the enemy ceases to fight, they should be forgiven rather than further proceeding with warfare. Since God is merciful, warfare is not the primary way to go.
I'd say these verses debunk the myths rather directly, wouldn't you say?
Well, I'd say that Islam still advocates violence under the right circumstances. Again, context does not matter. If I said,
"Kill and cut their heads off, but only if you must in defense"
....that's still encouraging violence, is it not? You have given me examples in context, but still have not explained to me how seeing it in context makes it all of a sudden peaceful. When you command someone to attack someone that is attacking them, you are encouraging violence. It doesn't MATTER if it's in self-defense. So is shooting some home invader with your pistol to save your family. That doesn't mean it's all of a sudden peaceful, does it?
[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And I can say is...you are not knowledgeable about Christianity.;)LJS9502_basic
I've been a Baptist, a Penticostal, an Adventist and a Methodist. I've learned a thing or two about the religion in my time.
That's nice but it doesn't necessarily mean you understand it. And frankly saying OT is important as part of Christianity is flat out wrong. The prophecies and history are there...sure. But that is all.So, to use the same line of questioning that you're used against another poster here: what makes your interpretation correct? What gives yours more validity than the ministers I grew up with?
[QUOTE="Tigerman950"]
[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]
What I don't understand is how people claim Islam to be entirely NON violent. That it does not advocate violence at all under any circumstances whatsoever. I could look up and post quotes that promote violent retributive action from the Q'uran, though then I'd be flooded by responses claiming I'm entirely looking at it out of context, as if for some reason viewing a violent quote IN context somehow all of a sudden makes it non-violent.
"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
That strikes me as fairly brutal. I don't care if it's all in defense of the faith, nor if it's wrapped in the most noble of intentions. It still advocates violence. I'd appreciate hearing how it doesn't, I've made this point before in other threads and no one has been able to explain this to me.
MirkoS77
I'll be happy to explain it to you.
One prime example is the passage that states, "And fight for the cause of God those who fight you. But do not be aggressive. Surely God does not like the aggressors." [2:190]
This can clearly be taken out of context; if one were to simply reference it by only saying "And fight for the cause of God," and therefore take it out of context obviously everyone would get the wrong idea. However, you have to look at the passage as a whole, not stop mid-verse. What it means is only to fight if someone else were to attack you first, plain and simple. Right after this, it commands not to be an aggressor, or be the first to transgress with an offensive attack without having first been ambushed or attacked. This is what people mean when they say it must be placed in proper context to be understood.
Another example, "Kill them wherever you find them and drive them out from wherever they drove you out." [2.190-191] "But if they desist, God is truly all-forgiving, merciful." [2:192]
I think it's clear here that one could very easily pick out from this verse and quote it by saying, "Kill them wherever you find them and drive them out," but as this is taken out of context, it gives a completely false conception. It is really trying to say that this type of killing is only permissible as a rebuttal if it was done to you first and you plan on reclaiming what was taken from you. Furthermore, when the enemy ceases to fight, they should be forgiven rather than further proceeding with warfare. Since God is merciful, warfare is not the primary way to go.
I'd say these verses debunk the myths rather directly, wouldn't you say?
Well, I'd say that Islam still advocates violence under the right circumstances. Again, context does not matter. If I said,
"Kill and cut their heads off, but only if you must in defense"
....that's still encouraging violence, is it not? You have given me examples in context, but still have not explained to me how seeing it in context makes it all of a sudden peaceful. When you command someone to attack someone that is attacking them, you are encouraging violence. It doesn't MATTER if it's in self-defense. So is shooting some home invader with your pistol to save your family. That doesn't mean it's all of a sudden peaceful, does it?
Violence is only encouraged when one is left with no other choice. When someone's attacking you, you're going to defend yourself correct? If they back down then you're supposed to leave it at that and forgive...you can only kill when you have to.
The passage you posted is relative only when someone's going to kill you anyway...you can either defend yourself by subduing the enemy (not necessarily by death) or, only if there is no other plausible option, you can kill them in defense. You know there are plenty of cases with that, with many people who are in combat (warfare, etc.). You're not just gonna let someone kill you, you're gonna stop them from doing that. But killing should never be the first response.
Violence is only encouraged when one is left with no other choice. When someone's attacking you, you're going to defend yourself correct? If they back down then you're supposed to leave it at that and forgive...you can only kill when you have to.
The passage you posted is relative only when someone's going to kill you anyway...you can either defend yourself by subduing the enemy (not necessarily by death) or, only if there is no other plausible option, you can kill them in defense. You know there are plenty of cases with that, with many people who are in combat (warfare, etc.). You're not just gonna let someone kill you, you're gonna stop them from doing that. But killing should never be the first response.
Tigerman950
I hear you, and I agree. However, it seems so many want Islam to be seen as this religion with some sort of "Ghandi-ish" pacifistic mentality where it doesn't advocate violence whatsoever, and it bothers me. This whole logic of, "it's self-defense, therefor it's peaceful." is a bunch of hogwash. Islam IS violent under the right conditions, therefor nobody can claim it to be 100% peaceful.
[QUOTE="Tigerman950"]
Violence is only encouraged when one is left with no other choice. When someone's attacking you, you're going to defend yourself correct? If they back down then you're supposed to leave it at that and forgive...you can only kill when you have to.
The passage you posted is relative only when someone's going to kill you anyway...you can either defend yourself by subduing the enemy (not necessarily by death) or, only if there is no other plausible option, you can kill them in defense. You know there are plenty of cases with that, with many people who are in combat (warfare, etc.). You're not just gonna let someone kill you, you're gonna stop them from doing that. But killing should never be the first response.
MirkoS77
I hear you, and I agree. However, it seems so many want Islam to be seen as this religion with some sort of "Ghandi-ish" pacifistic mentality where it doesn't advocate violence whatsoever, and it bothers me. This whole logic of, "it's self-defense, therefor it's peaceful." is a bunch of hogwash. Islam IS violent under the right conditions, therefor nobody can claim it to be 100% peaceful.
OK I see what you're saying but what I'm trying to get at here is that Islam doesn't condone killing any innocent person at all, in any way, shape or form. If you look at the passages I've posted in response to your first comment it should be clear, and if you understand that now then I'm glad.
I agree with what the op said except for the Holocaust part. Yes, Christianity did influence many to become anti-Semite during the course of history, but the Holocaust had many other different reasons and during the Nazi rule, Christianity was also treated with prejudice despite what Hitler or other Nazi officials may have said.
I guess the problem is how Islam is being interpreted and shown across the world. There's two extremes where the norm are just quiet about it, not even denouncing the extremities of both sides.
In fact, it's not really religion's fault entirely. It's man and how they pervert it satisfy their greed.
An interesting thing to point out on the Quran is that Mohammad's life can be divided between two parts, his Mecca days and his Medina days. The more peaceful verses were during the Mecca days, where Mohammad preached tolerance and acceptance. Once he got driven out and moved to Medina, his whole mentality changed. Gone were the days of tolerate Jews and Christians because they too believe in one God, now it's warfare and kill the infidels. Obviously that creates a contradiction to his earlier preaching. Enter abrogation, in which a new revelation overrides a previous one, in which Allah makes more "complete". That concept alone raised major question marks about the nature of Allah and the Quran, as well as the numerous "revelations" Mohammad has received, including the so-called "Satanic verses".hiphops_savior
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Mu3cKat5jE
Muhammad never spread warfare because people didn't follow his teachings, he and his men went back to Mecca to re-claim their property there after they were driven out by people who strongly opposed his teachings.
OK I see what you're saying but what I'm trying to get at here is that Islam doesn't condone killing any innocent person at all, in any way, shape or form. Tigerman950Well, many Muslims don't believe that America is innocent and that's how they justify terrorist attacks on American soil.
Because his assumptions are false, and there is no room for self-interpretation of the religion in Islam ...Study the material for yourself...Im not going to sit here and right a wall of text only to be accosted by arrogant atheists reiterating the same false misinformationNayef_shroof
You're calling me arrogant, yet all you said to me in reply was "Nope, your incorrect about every point, making blatant assumptions about matters that you obviously know little about." FFS
I essentially did study the material by myself. =S And I did so using authentic sources: the sahih ahadith and some reliable tafsirs like Tafsir Ibn Kathir. It is YOU who should study the material by yourself. Study the sources with an unbiased, unapologetic mindset. If you do, you'll do yourself a huge favor; trust me.
[QUOTE="Tigerman950"]OK I see what you're saying but what I'm trying to get at here is that Islam doesn't condone killing any innocent person at all, in any way, shape or form. paratheosWell, many Muslims don't believe that America is innocent and that's how they justify terrorist attacks on American soil.
Yes, but that obviously isn't the intention of the scriptures' meanings. By "innocent" I mean someone that doesn't attack you first.
Well, many Muslims don't believe that America is innocent and that's how they justify terrorist attacks on American soil.[QUOTE="paratheos"][QUOTE="Tigerman950"]OK I see what you're saying but what I'm trying to get at here is that Islam doesn't condone killing any innocent person at all, in any way, shape or form. Tigerman950
Yes, but that obviously isn't the intention of the scriptures' meanings. By "innocent" I mean someone that doesn't attack you first.
Many Muslims believe that the West "attacked first" by occupying Palestine and therefore attacks against the West are justified. They view terrorist attacks as defensive retaliation against the West for invading their land, which is justified according to the Quran.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment