Pro-Palestinian protesters shout ‘Allahu akbar’ outside of World Trade Center site

I know the history. A history that likely would have turned out the same, with or without the religion of Islam. Without Islam there still would have been the plagues that decimated Europe bringing about the Dark Ages and the Middle East would still have been spared from those plagues, with or without Islam.

 

You didn't define a single instance of theft of land.

 

You are being selective in your verses in Islam, which is showing your political agenda, which is showing you are not truly understanding the book you are allegedly quoting.

That is an interpretation made later on by a hadith. The original meaning was polytheistic religions in the Arabian peninsula. It began to change once we had the holy wars, the Crusades and has continued since then.

you referred to all Muslims in your original post. You are overtly generalizing here, and then "tried to prove it" with those selective verses to attempt to prove your point.

No, not really. It is not just Islam. I can give you Buddhism, Shintoism, and Christianity in which we have two theocracies, the Vatican, and another location in Turkey among Eastern Orthodoxy. We also have monarchs, such as the King in GB, also the head of the Church in England, the official "protector of the faith" similar to what Muslim countries have done from Iran to Saudi Arabia to other Muslim countries, but not all, such as Indonesia for instance, as well as Syria, and in the US, within the Evangelical Church in the USA, white evangelicals mostly, we have "Christian Nationalism" which is what some of those Islamic countries do. So, don't give me that political, naive BS you are stating here.

 

Its a big book on many topics. I select the verses that are relevant to the topic of discussion. AND I've been reading the Koran and Islamic doctrine since 9/11/2001. I understand it very well.

No. First because I didnt quote ANYTHING from the Hadith using "kefir" that was YOU. I quoted verses from the Koran using the term Idolaters AND YOU claimed " Kefir is the word used here, which applies to the the polytheistic groups in the Arabian peninsula." There is NO limitation to the Arabian Península in the Koran. And second I just went to the Wikipedia definition of Kafir
Kafir - Wikipedia

You lie! Here it is.

Yes, my comment "Islamic extremist are generally following a strict literal interpretation of Islam" is literally a generalization with the word "generally" in the statement but all my quotes from Islamic doctrine very nicely prove my point.

I should have said christian doctrine of the bible instead of "christianity" and my statement that christian doctrine of the bible "doesnt concern itself with government and law to be applied today" is accurate.

 

You can't read the Koran and then claim to know how Muslims view Islam. Portions of the Koran were written in the context of the major religious war taking place at that time, and don't project how Muslims are to live their lives outside of that ancient war.

You have to understand why it is that Islam is so opposed to the tiny numbers of ISIS radicals who very clearly DO NOT represent Islam. And, you can not do that by YOU picking and choosing verses.


Muslim extremists are opposed by mainstream Islam. Ground forces fighting ISIS (for example) are Muslim. Deciding that ISIS represents Islam is like deciding that the KKK represents America's version of Christianity.

Christians have been HIGHLY active in pushing their version of the Bible on the US population using the power of government.

 

Since I never claimed to know how Muslims view Islam and have instead only QUOTED Muslims to show how they view Islam, Not sure of the relevance of your point.

The verses of the Koran dont contain any such limitations to place and time AND quotes of Muslims show they are applying those commandments today and across the world. And the Koran states they are to apply "until... religion should only be for Allah". Religion is not yet only for allah and we have Islamic fighters waging war to bring that about today.
From the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest political organization in the Muslim world-

"Jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored nor evaded.... It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet."

Like Ive said repeatedly, ISIS members are Islamic fundamentalist, following a strict, literal interpretation of Islamic doctrine. Not all Muslims follow a strict literal interpretation of the same doctrine. Islam isnt opposed to ISIS. Many Muslims who do not follow a literal interpretation of Islamic doctrine are opposed to ISIS

 

My Nephew helped research and write

MILITANT IDEOLOGY ATLAS EXECUTIVE REPORT November 2006 Editor & Project Director: William McCants, PhD Project Coordinator: Jarret Brachman, PhD CTC Director: LTC Joseph Felter, PhD COMBATING TERRORISM CENTER 607 CULLUM ROAD WEST POINT, NY 10996
Atlas-ExecutiveReport.pdf (westpoint.edu)

Detailing which Islamic scholars are most cited by the militants and the content of those writings. Maqdisi and Qutb were among the most frequently cited scholars.

"Islam is not merely a belief, so that it is enough merely to preach it. Islam, which is a way of life, takes practical steps to organize a movement for freeing man. Other societies do not give it any opportunity to organize its followers according to its own method, and hence it is the duty of Islam to annihilate all such systems, as they are obstacles in the way of universal freedom. ...
This religion is really a universal declaration of the freedom of man from servitude to other men and from servitude to his own desires, which is also a form of human servitude; it is a declaration that sovereignty belongs to God alone and that He is the Lord of all the worlds. It means a challenge to all kinds and forms of systems which are based on the concept of the sovereignty of man; in other words, where man has usurped the Divine attribute." Qutb

"Their fascination was arisen after the defenders of democracy and the
defenders of other such false ideologies (who have no religion) defended democracy simply for the sake of it, and they mixed the falsehood with the Truth.
..... They distort the Truth with Falsehood, and mix the Light with the Darkness, and the Polytheism of democracy with the Monotheism of Islam. But we, with the help of Allah, replied to all of these fallacies, and showed that democracy is a religion. But it is not Allahs religion. It is not the religion of monotheism, and its parliamentary councils are just places of polytheism, and safe havens for paganistic beliefs. All of these must be avoided to achieve monotheism, which is Allahs right upon His servants. We must destroy those who follow democracy, and we must take their followers as enemies - hate them and wage a great Jihad against them.
Abu Muhammad 'Aasim al-Maqdisi

 

ISIS is a tiny population that interprets their religion in a way that no significant body of Muslims do.

I'd point out that in the USA we have courts that are based on Sharia law, under our constitution.

Pretending that small or radical groups represent Islam is a MAJOR mistake.

 

Once again, the problem here is that there exist people who take radicals as representative of the billion Muslims who oppose these radicals.

We do need to understand what the radicals are thinking. That's important - as it is important to understand what actually works to reduce them. We know what fails. Hate fails. Lack of educated thought fails.

The problem comes when people think the radicals represent the religion as a whole.

When people fail to differentiate, we develop a religion based hate for the full billions of followers of Islam. And, `that is a terrible result - rendering us nearly worthless in our legitimate efforts.

After the revolution in Egypt, ideas were discarded simply for LOOKING like they could have come from America. And, how could you blame them?

 

Not I, so not sure of the relevance of your point. Unless you think I should avoid highlighting such aspects of Islamic doctrine to avoid offending those Muslims who dont actually follow the doctrine in their lives. And then Id say NOPE! I will not avoid highlighting such aspects of Islamic doctrine because I dont care if facts hurt anyone feelings.

Isnt it revealing that you think my exposure of actual Islamic doctrine by quoting results in hate of Muslims. That says everything about the content of that doctrine.

Not I.

My opening post of the thread CLEARLY differentiated the Islamic fundamentalist from those Muslims who do not follow a strict, literal interpretation of Islam. And legitimate efforts to address violent Jihad waged by Islamic fundamentalist REQUIRES a recognition of the source of the problem. The written Islamic doctrine.

 

Same interpretation used by Al Qaeda, Hamas, Taliban and dozens of other Islamic groups. Same as the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest political party in the Muslim world. Its not a tiny population it is vast.

 

Yes, this is exactly what I'm pointing out.

Suggesting that Islam is what you believe about a radical terrorist minority is a gigantic mistake.

And, where it leads is pure religion based hatred.

We can not prevail with that attitude.

When your message is that you hate them for their religion, the billion Muslims are not going to be interested in what you say - making you irrelevant just like the USA made themselves irrelevant after the Egyptian revolution.

 

????? You also arent sure of the relevance of your point? Or are you referring to some other aspect of my post?

Really havent been saying what I "believe about a radical terrorist minority", I instead quote THEIR beliefs. What I believe is irrelevant, thats why you want to go there. What the Muslim brotherhood believes IS relevant.
"Jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored nor evaded.... It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet." Founder Of Muslim Brotherhood.

Revealing that you view my quotes of Islamic doctrine and the beliefs of Muslims, to be a message that I hate them. Says absolutely nothing about me and everything about the content of that doctrine and the beliefs of those who follow a strict literal interpretaion of that doctrine.

 

These groups have different objectives that they justify by their interpretation of the Koran as well as other motivations. ISIS wants to set up their own country, which others aren't motivated to do.

Afghanistan is different in that the Taliban have been the government and they haven't had objectives in defeating the US other than when WE INVADED THEM and tried to end their existence by war and coercion.

And, the rest absolutely ARE a tiny minority.

 

AND we also have 1392 years of Islamic history to know why they wage violent jihad. ALL but 92 years of those 1392 years is characterized by successive Caliphates applying Islamic doctrine as law under a form of government dictated by Islamic doctrine. From the first Caliph, Abu Bakr in 632 as the successor to Muhamad, whose first action was to wage the Wars of Apostasy ON THEIR FELLOW MUSLIMS because they dared stop paying Zakat to Mecca. Violent Jihad to maintain the form of governance to rule AND the laws to be applied. All dictated by original Islamic doctrine. To the last Caliph, that guy at the top of ISIS leadership recently causing mayhem in Syria and Iraq.

Religion that dictates the form of government and law to be applied TODAY and in 632 is a bad idea. Might work once they implement "the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet" and succeed. Luckily thats not going to happen. Fortunately Muslims are too busy fighting among themselves as to who rules the Islamic world and lose focus on the rest of the world they are supposed to conquer. 632 Islam ruled part of Saudi Arabia. Within 80 years of Muhammads death, they were waging violent Jihad in Afghanistan to the East and Spain to the west, all to expand the rule of Islamic governance. Expand the imposition of Shariah law on all inhabitants of the earth.

We know why they wage violent jihad. For christ's sake none other than Thomas Jefferson and John Adams asked them, in 1785 why they wage war on international maritime activities taking westerners as slaves and stealing cargo. The ambassador from Tripoli told them it was because “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
Muhammad himself for christ's sake got his start raiding camel caravans of the Idolaters, jews and christians. Islam does what Islamic doctrine says it is to do. 632, 1785, today and every day in between. Silly to stick your heads into the sand and pretend otherwise.

 

They all justify violent jihad to bring about Islamic governance imposing Islamic doctrine as law. Fortunately it takes HUGE islamic balls to declare themselves as THE Islamic Caliphate of the world. Appoint the one person to be Caliph as the singular authority of all the Islamic world. Bunch of goat herders in Afghanistan know the rest of the Muslim world isnt going to recognize Afghanistan as the seat of the Islamic empire or the one ruler with authority of all Muslims of the world. The last significant Caliphate, the Ottoman empire with established control of vast areas of territory, especially Mecca and Medina and their inhabitants is what enabled them to take the Caliphate to a large expanse.




661-750 under the Umayyads. Imagine ISIS or Al qaeda today ruling over such an expanse today. They would have the ability expand even further.

 

WTF??

So did Rome. So did Greece. So did India. So did China. So did Japan. So did Germany. So did Russia/USSR/Russia again. When the US became a thing, so did WE.

You need to think about what you are claiming.

 

What silliness. Those lands and people didnt justify their form of government and laws to be applied with religious doctrine. With the exception of the holy roman empires based upon CATHOLIC doctrine not found in the bible.

 

What silliness. Those lands and people didnt justify their form of government and laws to be applied with religious doctrine. With the exception of the holy roman empires based upon CATHOLIC doctrine not found in the bible.

 

Generally it is. It has five pillars in which a Muslim should do in their lifetime. But if you are making that argument, then you cannot make the argument that Muslims are "strictly interpreting" their religious book. In doing that, you have disemboweled your own argument from the beginning. Congrats.

Did you read the ENTIRE Wikipedia page here on Kafir? Here is what Wikipedia had to say from your own link: "According to the E. J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913–1936, Volume 4, the term first applied in the Quran to unbelieving Meccans, who endeavoured "to refute and revile the Prophet". A waiting attitude towards the kafir was recommended at first for Muslims; later, Muslims were ordered to keep apart from unbelievers and defend themselves against their attacks and even take the offensive.[22] Most passages in the Quran referring to unbelievers in general talk about their fate on the day of judgement and their destination in hell." The Meccans were polytheistic in the 6th AD. And in reference, it is a fate in the day of judgement, much like the book of Revelations and some other passages in the NT to those who do not believe in the Christian faith. Then if you read further in that link of yours, it will state that it has changed over time. This implies under reasonable conclusions that the hadiths written by clerics, reinterpreted the original meaning of the word "kafir" to fit the political times of that day. That is what extremist religious clerics do whether it is Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc.

the point is that "Kafir" has many different meanings much like the word love or other words in the English language. You just can't pick one definition and then ignore the other definitions while stating with a straight face "this is the "strict interpretation" of the Koran. No it is not. It is an interpretation that try to use Islam to justify their political beliefs much the same way Christians do the same with "just ware" doctrine. There is no such thing as a "just war" if you read Sun Tzu, Von Clausewitz, and others.

I am not lying, see the point above. Additionally, here is what you said in post #170

The main problem with your argument is you don't know what the strict and literal interpretation is because you don't know Arabic, much less Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. The words translated into the English language are imprecise at best, and are based on your interpretations of what those words mean. That is your problem, no one elses.

That is a logical fallacy. If you want to look at the strict and literal verse, then you must use the original meaning of that word at the time the book was written, in the 6th Century AD. This is prior to the Crusades in the Holy Land and Islam was just fluttering with the Meccans and other groups being intolerant of a new religion on their block some 1500 years ago. Today, it has been reinterpreted and reinterpreted and reinterpreted from the original meaning to fit todays times. That is not a strict and literal interpretation, that is simply their interpretation period outside the original meaning of the word.

There is no Christian Doctrine in the Bible. It is the word of man written by the Word of God. That is why we have three major sects: Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, and then different viewpoints such in the Catholic Church the difference between the Jesuit Order and the Benedictine order, or in Protestantism, the difference between Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, etc. All use the Bible for their religious doctrinal beliefs, interpreted by Man based on the Holy Book called the Bible. Ironically, they all say "they are right" and everyone else is wrong when describing their doctrinal beliefs.

 

The Bible says we all die and fall short of the glory of god. Does this mean that we literally die? Or is it a spiritual death?

In Matthew 19:24 says "I'll say it again is easier for a camel to go through the eye of A needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God." Does this mean that Christianity is not for "rich people" or that "rich people" will have a harder time getting into heaven, literally, than a poor person?

Your link in Wikipedia says, "Most passages in the Quran referring to unbelievers in general talk about their fate on the day of judgment and destination in hell." This is referring to a spiritual death, not a literal death, from the interpretation of the verses in the Quran, much like Christianity in the two examples I gave you.

What you are doing is making the mistake, the fallacy in your argument, to interchangeably use carnate definitions to apply to incarnate beliefs within the Quran. Extremists do that, and thus it is not a "strict interpretation" but rather an interpretation by those who who have political ambitions to achieve their goals while using the Quran to do so.

 

1948 Arab-Israeli War much to the same way as we "stole" Native American land by violating treaties or going to war with them. We stole land from the Cherokees in the 19th century, even forcibly moved them to a place called Indian territory, aka Oklahoma, and never paid a dime for it.

 

I'm sorry, but you don't given the posts you are making about Islam and Christianity.

 

LOL! Ill wait here while you scamper about looking for refuge in the next strawman. I made no such argument. I said Islamic fundamentalist strictly interpret their religious book.

LOLOL! No, YOU kicked the sh#t out of YOUR strawman. You can let it go now if you can

ALL irrelevant to my point you so desperately seek to refute.

 

LOLOL ALL irrelevant. Quoting YOUR version of the verse
"And when the inviolable months1 have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them"

Kill means kill. And using my translation "slay the idolaters wherever you find them," both version is the intent to bring about their DEATH.

Here is my original point you disputed with strawmen and irrelevant tangents

Youve offered nothing to refute this simple proposition.