Study;' Bible more violent than the Qur’an

They will argue that those passages are in the Old Testament, and are therefore irrelevant.

 

Muslims believe America to be at war with Islam. Their inchoate belief has made this a real phenomenon in their minds. Thus, the war goes on endlessly.

Jews love Americans. Jewish ladies wet themselves in the presence of an American man.

 

Mohammed was a nice man, but he was also a registered sex offender. Mohammed didn't write the Quran. That book was written by Allah.

 

The overactive imagination is something that can exist in all humans. With a specific set of chemical reactions in the body of the patient the overactive imagination can be induced, either chemically, through exercise or massage.

 

Evidence for Mohammed being a 'registered' sex offender?

 

That was the only things you got right... Progress.

Muhammad (PBUH) was not a registered sex offender... Simple as that... And Allah SWT didn't write the Quran, neither did Muhammad (PBUH)... It was his companions who wrote the Quran, Muhammad (PBUH) recited it, and Allah SWT shared it with him through the Angel Gabriel.

سلام

 

First of all, the wars Muhammad SAW and the Muslims fought in during this time were not wars of aggression, rather the opposite. These were defensive wars necessary to fight for the rights of Muslims and against the oppression and aggression of the Pagan tribes.

What other Muslims on here need to act more peaceful? There are no Taliban or al-Qaida here, no fundamentalists, no extremists...


I can recognize and understand that. I realize not every Christian follows the faith as it's suppose to be followed... but it sounds like the same story with the groups of Muslims I mentioned above. Not every Muslim follows the way given to us in the Quran, either. Can you recognize and understand this with Islam as well?

 

At most some of them could be called "provoked" such as the one he launched because someone killed one of his messengers.

Actually on that note, since Muhammad did stuff like that and went after those providing material support to his foes, are Muslims on board with the American line of thinking where wars count as defensive even though they may be pre-emptive or against supporters of our enemies?

But as much as wars are important, I think the greater divergence is in how individuals are called to act.

For example Muslims being called, in general and specificaly by fatwas, to kill specific individuals that had insulted Muhammad, Islam, that had converted, etc etc.

Well, it's a forum, you never know

However here it's more a matter of the sides taken in threads regarding various issues.

For example, do you recall the thread where moon was applauding the attacks on Afgan schools and civilians/children that happened to be there, because the schools might have mixed some western values in there? I think you might have been in it.

And while Christians are quite willing to call for military intervention against "Christians" that have descended into massacres and so on, for example during the Kosovo conflict or against the "Lord's Resistance Army", I don't see any of the Muslims here calling takfir on terrorists and imploring the US to go get them, or anything like that.

The distinction is that, aside from the occasionally clinically crazy individual, a Christian committing some atrocity is either aware that what they are doing is sinfull, or they have actually become an athiest and are simply mislabeled because they used to be a Christian.

Muslims however blow up women and children thinking it is one of if not the most holy thing they could do, and assures them paradise in the afterlife.

Now, to be fair, there are more peaceful branches of Islam. Particularily in western countries.

However their seem to be shortcomings in their efficacy at convincing all the individuals within their organizations to not commit terrorists attacks, to actively support intelligence and military agencies in combating terrorism, and thereby to convince people worried about Islam that their claims of peacefullness are more than Taqiyya for western fools.

Though again to be fair, I think they make some efforts on those fronts.

But it would be nice to see you on the side of those fighting terrorists more often.

 

The stupidity of your sad attempt to equate the two religions is how they are practiced today and what famous scholars have said and are teaching today about Islam.

First a brief history and clarification to your revisionist history (paraphrased and quoted):

To correct the lies spoken in this apologist spiel you must put in the real historical context of the Verse of the Sword and the words of the Hadiths.

Let's start with the Hadiths ie the traditions of Mohammad. Here Mohammad explains how certain verses he put in the Qur'an came to him. In many Hadiths, he continued to repeat there is nothing better his followers could do than engage in jihad warfare. Many apologists have tried to claim that jihad had broader meaning than actual war but to believe that you have to lie about Mohammad's life as a warlord while he wrote his book.

When a Muslim asked him to name the "best deed" he could do Mohammad responded"

"To participate in Jihad in Allah's Cause"

He explained that "to guard Muslims from infidels in Allah's Cause for one day is better than the world and whatever is on its surface" For "a journey undertaken for jihad in the evening or morning merits a reward better than the world and all that is in it"

He also warned Muslims who do not engage in Jihad

"He who does not join the warlike expedition (jihad) or equip or looks well after a warriors family when he is away will be smitten by Allah with a sudden calamity"

And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the place whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter"

In one very important Hadith, he lays out the consequences for non believers.

It has been reported from Sulaiman b Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war....When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to accept Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them....If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hand. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.


So lets review. There are three choices for unbelievers:

1. Accept Islam
2. Pay the jiyza
3. War with Muslims

Now lets talk about the true context of the Verse of the Sword.

To understand this you need to understand the suras, the Meccan and Medinan.

The Meccan from of the first segment of Muhammad's career as a prophet. Later, after he had fled to Medina, his positions hardened. The Medianan suras are less poetic and generally much longer than those from Meccan they're also filled with matters of law and ritual and exhortations to jihad warfare against unbelievers ie infidels. The more tolerant verses generally date from the Meccan period, while those with a more violent and intolerant edge are mostly from Medina.

This distinction matters because of the Islamic doctrine of abrogation or (naskh). This is the idea that Allah can change or cancel what he tells Muslims: "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or simila: knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things? 2:106

According to this verse, the violent verses of the ninth sura, including the Verse of the Sword abrogate the peaceful verses because they were revealed later in Mohammad's life when he was more warlord and murderer than prophet. In fact, most Muslim authorities agree that the ninth sura was the very last section of the Qur'an to be revealed making the point even stronger.

In fact, this justification in the Qur'an nullifies over 100 peaceful passages in the Qur'an and is supported by Imams throughout history as a factual understanding of the Qur'an. Abd al Rahman ibn Abi Bakr al Suyuti (1445-1505) said the ninth sura "was sent down when security was removed by the sword". Another mainstream commentator of the Qur'an, Amr bin Kathir al Dimashqi (1301-1372) said sura 9:5 or the Verse of the Sword "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah (the 9th sura) was revealed. And another commentator of the Qur'an still cited today as well, Ibn JHuzayy around 1340 said the Verse of the Sword's purpose is "abrogating every peace treaty in the Qur'an."


Now for the most important part. How Islamic scholars teach their people (paraphrased and quoted):

Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (996):

Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. The6y have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax short of which war will be declared against them.

Ibn Taymiyya (1328 )

Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God's entirely and God's word is upper-most, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for theose who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (propaganda) and acts.

And most importantly, the Hanafi school:

It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not fore the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the calling order to save themselves from the troubles of war....If the infidels upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitulation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion the Prophet, moreover, commands us to do so.


Now we all know you think very highly of yourself so feel free to post all the famous Christian scholars who quote all these violent passages in the Bible and justify violence against non believers just like these Islamic scholars have done.

Go ahead.

 

texmaster, by which qualification do you presume to enlighten us on the moslem understanding of the term ' jihad ' ?

 

Well, you can get into a cage with a tiger if you like-there's no law to stop you and you're free to so do. However, unless common sense prevails and you stay out, you're going to have to deal with its teeth.
To hide behind the mantra of freedom of expression is absurd. With that freedom comes the responsibility of acting courteously, respectfully and with dignity.
Just because you're allowed to do something does not make that an order to do it. So, insult someone's deeply felt religious beliefs by all means, but don't be surprised or act outraged if they bite back. That is their right according to their beliefs and culture.

Why do Americans find this so difficult to grasp?

 

Well you are right - sort of.

See, writings alter according to

A) The target audience

B) The mood of the day.

So, the writers of the NT are thinking of a book that targets their audience, for the mood of their day, and they realise that if they keep in all the stuff about god being a participator in, and an advocate of, rape, slavery, human sacrifice, and genocide, that this may not be in keeping with this reinvented, sort of sanatised and 'softer god' that they are after.

So that has to pretty much go.

That's not to say that there are still not a great many words in the NT that most normal people would find ethically and morally wrong, today, but there was an obvious attempt here to write a book that presented this new 'brand of god'.

I am actually not sure if Jesus ever did specifically declare that he was the 'son of god', personally, did he?

Indeed, I am sure he said that he was the 'son of man'.

He did prophecise things relating to those that lived in his generation, which turned out not to be true, I'm afraid, but there were prophets all over the land back then, they were ten a penny.

People put a lot of stock in prophets and seers because they knew less of the World around them.

The prophets and seers gave them the comfort of 'knowing', even if it is inaccurate.

It is no coincidence that there are no 'prophets' as such, these days, and, if there are, they are on the fringe, and laughed at.

That is because we know more of the World, and consider prophets to be little more than men with a good imagination, that make forecasts, often vague.

I less understand a religionist rejecting modern prophets.

Why can't a modern day prophet be worth listening to, why can't he be telling the truth, and have an important message to share?

Of course, handily enough, the writers of the Christian religion, they make account for this possibility. Rather than accept that prophets were ten a penny back then, and rather than accept that any other prophet may ever say anything of worth, they ensure that you don't listen, by automatically 'warning' of 'false' prophets.

This turns out to be anything which is not their prophet, which is predictable enough.

Islam seems more tolerant of other prophets, Jesus being one.

But I have to wonder how Muslims today would feel about prophets today, or those that lay claim to being one?

Jack

 

Do they?

Have you gone around asking all of them?

Or is this yet more toxic guff you've been reading, Albert?

And, even if some did, why do you suppose they may have that idea?

Any rings on the old clue phone?

 

No wonder.

Everyone con man loves a sucker, baby.

 

To which I would ask, if the OT is not the word of god, and all of it irrelevant, how do we know that the NT isn't, as well?

 

What sad attempt?

Read the title of the thread.

All I had to do was set out to show evidence of this.

I have done that.

As for 'how they are practised today', hey, I would say god believers are still doing well with the god given desires to murder, sacrifice people, jealousy, and anger, wouldn't you? Deceit as well, god liked deceit, and approved of it's use, on more than one occasion.

What do you believe is the real driving force that attacks Musim nation after Muslim nation, if not a religous war?

The Crusades for the second millenia.

 

Loud mouth, VERY loud voices, and an unwarranted sense of importance?

 

Are you incapable of reading? I already provided the material and the Muslim scholars who addressed it. How about addressing that?

 

Which is pointless if it doesn't reflect what is taught by the scholars of that religion.

Going to duck the evidence I provided. No surprise.

\

Where is your evidence of this lie? Where are all the Christian scholars as I provided for Islam justifying violence against non believers and using their book to do it? You've got to have more than your rhetoric if you want to be taken seriously.

If you actually knew your history you would have known the Crusades were a reaction to 400 years of Muslims raping and pillaging Christian lands. Not any person in power in the West has used the Bible as its justification for attacking anyone in the Middle East for over 100 years.

 

So, you are parroting.

 

Right.

So leave it up to 'scholars' to phase out the parts of the book that do show that the evil god took part in, and advocated many things that today we would find illegal, immoral, and disgusting.

Just sort of forget those passes, is that what 'scholars' do?

 

Ah.

A 'reaction'.

Like an allergy, right?

 

Evidence of what?

And what did you 'provide'?

 

Bible more violent than Qur'an? So???

Fundie Islam IS the religion of violence and death. I'm all done here. Yep.

 

I think you need to look more at the history of the 20th century in relation to western interests in the middle east.

the fact is that like it or not, those who orchestrated the attacks on 9/11 were able to feed of resentments that already existed in order to recruit the people who carried out those attacks.

terrorism - which is hardly unique to msulims - is a political act, not a religious act.

the politicisation of Islam is fed by the anti muslim rantings that continually come out of the west.

the ignorant people who tend to dominant the "latest world news" section ofthis forum are part of that. they promote ignorance and hatred, and spread lies and misinformation about Islam.

this has two major impacts.

firstly, it increases the the level of ignorance and distrust among westerners,

secondly, it increases the sense among muslims, especially those who have sufficient english language skills and time to access sites like this - most likely to be young males - that they are under attack, further leading to the likelihood of increased radicalisation among this group.

you might also like to consider that

1.there have been far more innocent muslims killed by the actions of the US in recent years than innocent americans who have been killed by muslims,

2. the US has over many decades supported regimes which have violated the rights of their own people, and engaged in political actions to ensure that their preferred despot is in power

and

3. that the US provides huge support on every level, a country which constantly violates the rights of its muslim neighbours, and is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent muslim civilians.