College Republican says he got violent threats after he asked Muslim group to condemn terror attacks

Idolaters pray to gods and they are threatened with death if they fail to convert to Islam. BUT ISNT IT REVEALING that you defend Islam threatening death unless they pray to a god. As an atheist that wouldn't help me.

 

To Muslims it is the foundation of their belief that some of the earlier Meccan verses are abrogated by the later Medinan verses. I assume you are not a muslim and so what you believe it means couldn't be more irrelevant

Many muslims follow a literal interpretation. Tortured and twisted interpretations like yours, where even complete sentences can be interpreted to mean nothing at all, can assign any meaning they like.

 

I provided the interpretation in a source with a link. I did not make the interpretation.

 

And suddenly you're a Muslim scholar.... lol.
I think not.

 

You're no scholar to claim how they follow their religion.
My source stands.

 

Yeah, you relied on this guys interpretation



American scholars interpretations of the meanings of verses are kind of irrelevant when Muslims are interpreting it differently.

I provided interpretations of Muslims such as Dr. al-Buti

 

OK--then you already realize it is only an interpretation, and that other Muslims could make a different one. This is the problem with Islam--the more violent sects do interpret differently, and use Islam to support violence. They even persecute more peaceful Islamic sects, such as the Sufis.

The bottom line problem with Islam is Mohammed himself, and how violent he became during his Medina phase. If Islam did not claim he was infallible this would not be as big a problem. Islam itself has created this flaw.

 

Uh no. The exceptionally very very fast bulk in the extreme doesn't apply that interpretation you speak off. Even to the point that the people who fail to interpret it correctly are mostly the alt-right nazi's.

That is where you are wrong. The very very fast bulk in the extreme who follow the teachings of Mohammed are peaceful. Your line of thought is simply exceptionally far of how it is in reality. Your fantasy is very much in line of what the racist nazi hate sites rant up.

 

Nope, a reader and quoter of the words of the koran applying a literal meaning of the words of the koran. Like the Islamic fundamentalist who are responsible for this decades long campaign of Islamic terrorism that weve been experiencing. And I presented the interpretation of one Islamic scholar supporting compulsion to convert people to Islam, and another Islamic scholar to support the concept of abrogation of your verse stating their is no compulsion in Islam, with the later Medinan verse

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives 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; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Essentially convert or die. There was no compulsion in Islam WHEN Muhammad was still in Mecca, even his own tribes people would throw camel **** at him and mock his religion. He was in no position to compel anything from the idolaters. Later when he wrote the verse above in Medina, he had a large army of Idolaters converted to Islam without compulsion, and made way for conversion with compulsion. FIRST action of the first Caliphate after Muhammads death was to wage the wars of Apostasy against Muslim tribes who stopped paying Zakat to Mecca after Muhammad died, based on the authority of the above verse. Soon as they stopped paying the "poor rate", its back to "slay the idolaters wherever you find them" until they again agreed to "keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate". Compulsion in the application of Islam.

YOU rely upon the interpretations of people like Michael Bonner, Winter, T. J., & Williams and
A.C. Brown, Jonathan to support the interpretation that "Islamic law prohibits forced conversion". I suspect not a one of them a Muslim, and yet I, from your own Wikipedia page can use the interpretation of a Palestinain born Wael B.Hallaq to show "that pagans faced a choice between conversion to Islam and fight to the death"

 

?????? You didn't contradict anything he said. He made no representations as to what portion of Muslims are not peaceful.

 

Even bigger problem is that its a LITERAL interpretation of the koran and hadiths that motivates Islamic terrorism. If they were using some tortured and twisted interpretation it would be easier to argue their interpretation is wrong. Instead we have to argue that the words don't mean what they say in order to sway them from their belief that they are commanded by Allah to "fight" "kill", "slay" and "smite the necks" of the unbelievers "until.... religion is only for Allah"

 

Was the driver of the car motivated by Republicanism? I'm not aware of any Republican doctrine that advocates running over a random victim in the road while there is an abundance of Islamic doctrine advocating killing the unbelievers. And if he is a terrorist, I guess we should be thankful he isn't very good at it

 

And not a shred of evidence that he was motivated by Republicanism. OR a shred of republican doctrine that would support his actions.

 

An attack on the other side of the planet in the name of Islam. And they would of asked for their prosecution if they thought they were guilty by association. Their only guilt is promoting the same Islamic doctrine that motivated those Muslims on the other side of the planet.

 

Yet more "my bad isn't nearly as bad as their bad".

 

oh yeah?

"In light of other racist events occurring throughout our country and the world, we as the MSA would also like to express OUR support for victims of white supremacy, nationalism, and terrorism. "

 

So you're just unqualified. Thanks for sharing.
You're entire argument goes mute.

 

why do Muslims have great difficulty condemning terrorist attacks committed by Muslims?

is it cause they think Jihad is a worthwhile cause?

 

It does. Because it's mostly them nazi haters who make these stupid "interpretations" so it fits their agenda.
While the 99,9999% of all muslims say they are wrong. It's like having a conversation with a person who claims the earth is flat.

 

actually a good 20% of Muslims believe violent Jihad against the West is justified.

 

A guilty by association is a fail argument.

 

but its true a good percentage of Muslims support terrorism against The West

 

There is a fatwa against terrorism. So you're claim is just unfounded.

Why does the Jew have such a hard time condemning the Jew government breaching international law?

 

Makes perfect sense. Look at what the Christian/Judean west did to their countries. How about the west stop supporting that jew nation violating international law? Stop funding the Egyptian violent dictator? Stop supporting Saudi Arabia blowing up Yemen. Reimburst Iraq with trillions for the creation of ISIL because they caused the total anarchy? Need I go on?

 

this thread is about Muslim terrorist attacks, not Israel.