Do you speak arabic? Then you do not know which translation is correct. You want to believe the more PC versions? Fine. Given the fact that there are large numbers of self-proclaimed muslims quoting these versus exactly as I have done to justify their barbarity demonstrates that many arabic speaking people translate them exactly the way I have quoted. As for trusting muslims about it, I do and will not. It says right in their unholy book that they should deceive us about their hostile intent. They have been documented mistranslating the texts in other languages to avoid people knowing islam's true violent nature as well. As for context, EVERY quote I gave was IN context, since it included the verse it came from. With that information, you can go read all you wish, as you did. This is not different from any other quote including when you quote me out of context. You say I am distorting the meaning. No, I am not. I would care less what their crappy words mean if they weren't committing acts of barbarity using these words to justify it. It is they that MAY be mistranslating/misinterpreting them. Either way, it has nothing to do with me and does not refute my point in any way that islam is violent. Whether it is violent because of misinterpretations or mistranslations, it is violent. THE CONTEXT OF ALL QURANIC QUOTES IS THE WORLDWIDE TERRORISM THEY ARE COMMITTING USING THE QURAN AS JUSTIFICATION.

This is total nonsense. They consider muhammed the perfect man, their role model, and their prophet, meaning he SPOKE FOR ALLAH. It is simply nonsensical that a religion based on a warlord, cold blooded murderer, rapist, religiously violent fanatic that waged numerous wars of conquest and told his followers to wage eternal war for world domination could be peaceful. Its simply ridiculous. You might as well say naziism was peaceful and nazis just took hitler's words out of context. And, discussing Christianity in the context of islamofascism is simply a diversion and has NOTHING to do with the topic since Christians are not threatening anyone with a worldwide terrorist war. Its simply off topic, but your assertion that Christ "violently" threw the money changers out is over the top. He hurt NO ONE.

You can keep trying to justify the indefensible if you like, but I am sure the majority of people reading these quotes from the quran aren't going to buy it. The words are just too evil and the impact of them can be witnessed in muslim terrorism all over the word. I notice you have nothing to say about the core issues- the fact that muhammed was a cold blooded murderer, rapist, conquerer, etc and somehow set an example that supposedly established a "peaceful" religion.

__________________
Qur'an:8:39 Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
Qur'an:8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an 8:12 I will terrorize the unbelievers...Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.
Qur'an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

The idea that the USA being involved in the ME causes islamofascism is simply a lie, propaganda of the enemy. If it were true, the islamofascists wouldn't be attacking numerous countries that are not involved in the ME or call for the destruction of entire countries over a cartoon. But, the islamofascists will attacks anyone that isn't muslim, wherever you live. Hell, they will attack muslims as well if they don't view them as worshiping the "true" form of islam.

__________________
Qur'an:8:39 Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
Qur'an:8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an 8:12 I will terrorize the unbelievers...Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.
Qur'an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

Is this thread about destroying the religion of Islam, or advocating destroying all of its followers?

Burning books versus shooting people?


Ixtellor

P.S. I guess I am against both. But I would be less concerned about burning all the Korans and bull dozing Mosques.

P.P.S. Again, I am against both.

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

If that's what you call "in context", then the quotes I pulled from MLK's speech could be considered "in context."

And that doesn't explain why you would post, as examples of Islam's "evil" and "aggression" and "violence", quotes that actually mean the opposite or something else entirely.

You're either confused or disingenous.

You realize that you contradict yourself in that paragraph, right?

So if I quote the Bible as justification for an act of violence, does that make the Bible "evil" and a terrorism manual?

If I construct an argument from the text of the Constitution giving me the right to kill people, does that make the Constitution "evil" and a condoner of killing?

Just because killers claim to have justification for their actions from a document does not mean that document actually supports their claim.

And Christians believe the same thing about Christ.

Ah, so it doesn't matter what anyone says about Islam. You've decided that it's nonsensical, so actual practice and interpretation doesn't matter.

A religion born during war is going to have more fighting in it than a religion born during peace. What matters is how that religion is subsequently applied.

For a book written by a warlord in the 600s, the Koran displays remarkable restraint. And it's those restraints that modern Islam is built on.

My point was that Christians seek to imitate Christ's overall message, not every detail of his life. Like Muslims and Muhammad.

That's up to them. I trust most people to understand that quotes taken out of context mean nothing. They can judge for themselves whether the context I've provided is persuasive or not.

Muhammad was a warlord, living in a violent region during a violent time; standards were different then. I would not accept someone trying to do the same today, but the fact that he was a creature of his times doesn't automatically disqualify his message. For his time, his message was relatively enlightened. And the important thing today is how that message has adapted itself to modern times.

That said, if you have specific examples of him being a "cold-blooded murder" and rapist, please offer them so I can address them. I don't address vague generalities.

__________________
Man up.

I would recommend you read the entire thread. It's quite good. It's about destroying the homicidal political cult/philosophy of Islam which is not a religion.

__________________
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter

What would you call having sex with a nine year old child?

__________________
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter

what would you call having sex with a guy?

__________________
Why does my heart cry? Feelings I can't fight...

Not my cup of tea.

__________________
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter

I have no problem with anyone quoting anyone. Others are free to discuss the context, which clearly CAN add nuance and even change the meaning of the words. I concede that fact. A good example would be the way the dems are quoting McCain's '100 year war' comments. My point is that there would be no point in quoting something if you had to quote the entire text. As long as the source is given, the context is there to be analyzed by those that wish. Quoting out of context in an attempt to distort IS disingenuous, but this is clearly not my purpose. I already said I do not speak arabic and did not translate these quotes. As for their context, the entire quran was filled with crap like this. Its much more like the journal of a madman/warlord/thug than a religious text. So, to me, that and the worldwide jihad these madmen are running and saying is being done under the orders of the quran and muahmmed is the context. If they didn't say the quran and muhammed told them to do it, then I wouldn't care what muhammed said in the least.

If you thought that were true, I doubt you would waste your time debating me.

What contradiction?

This is an excellent point. But, it isn't just the words that are the issue. Without the massive number of evil deeds we see all over the world perpetrated by people claiming to do it for islam, the words would not matter. But, to understand out enemy we must understand their ideology. And thus muhammed's words are important in this fight because it is the ideological source of our enemy. muhammed personally killed far more people than hitler and his ideology outpaces hitler by an even greater margin. To fail to understand this fact, is to fail to know our enemy and a serious disadvantage the isamofascists make every attempt to capatilize upon. In fact, it really is their greatest asset in the war.

Christ wasn't a cold blooded, thieving, raping, murdering warlord bent on world conquest.

You admit muhammed was a warlord, conquerer, and violent. It seems you pretty much agree with my position then about muhammed but fail to see how this could possibly mean islam is similar. But, he is their perfect madman and prophet. Nothing he could do could possibly be wrong and all muslims should follow his orders and example, according to them.

As you say, he was merely the product of his times, nothing transcendent or great in any way other than murder, intimidation, and brainwashing which he seems to have been very good at. He set out to rule the lands around him and managed to do it, with a tremendous amount of brutality. This was typical of the time and area it is true but certainly makes clear the fact that his ideology has no place in the modern world.

Qur'an 33:51 "You may have whomever you desire; there is no blame."

Qur'an 4:23 "Prohibited to you are: your mothers, daughters, sisters.... Also [prohibited are] women already married, except slaves who are captives."

As far as muhammed's life of murder and rape and such, it is all discussed in the hadiths which you say we can't discuss/quote. These are the stories of muhammed's life. muslims value the hadiths so I am a little unclear why you say they are meaningless? I guess you just don't want to talk about muhammed's life? Here is somebody talking about the hadiths, in case that fits your quoting rules:

"Muhammad was 52 and Aisha was 9 when they married and sexually consummated their marriage. This action must be questioned, regardless of it being a cultural norm, because Muhammad's action and teachings on marriage established an Islamic precedent: a girl is judged an adult following her first menses, and is eligible for marriage and sexual relations. Thus Muslim men are allowed to marry and have intercourse with young girls who have happened to have an early first menstrual cycle. As will be shown, this leads to physical and psychological damage to the child.

Muhammad's first wife - Khadija, died a few years before he fled to Medina. Later, he was encouraged to take another wife. At the age of 49 he was betrothed to Aisha, age six. Aisha was his closest friend's, Abu Bakr's, daughter. Three years later, following her first menstrual cycle, he then formally married and sexually consummated his marriage with her.

Most Western people know it is not in a 9 year old girl's best interest to engage in marriage and sexual relations with a 52 year old man, regardless of the cultural setting. We know that, in our culture today, a person doing such a thing could possible be sent to prison for sex with a minor, statutory rape, or other related laws. Most of us find it questionable for Muhammad, a self proclaimed prophet of God, to do such a thing. We expect a real prophet to know better, or at least hear from God on the matter.

What is more critical than Muhammad's single action with Aisha is that he taught that a girl is considered an adult following her first menstrual cycle. He also taught that his followers were to follow his "sunnah" or lifestyle. Thus today, throughout much of the Mideast, girls as young as nine are often married by men old enough to be their grandfather."

__________________
Qur'an:8:39 Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
Qur'an:8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an 8:12 I will terrorize the unbelievers...Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.
Qur'an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

Today? Rape and child abuse. Back then the standards were different.

If you're referring to his marriage to Aisha, I would have several responses.

1. There is some serious dispute as to Aisha's actual age at the time of marriage; the accounts are contradictory. Some put it at 8/9; others (sometimes the same source!) put it at 16/17.

2. Child brides were common in the 600s and for centuries afterward. Even in Western societies, it wasn't unusual to see kids being married off. Some examples from Byzantium:

a. Agnes of France was 8 when she married the 13-year-old emperor Alexius II Comnenus, in the late 1100s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_o...antine_empress)

b. Irene Ducaena, wife of Alexius I Comnenus, was 12 when she married.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irene_Ducaena

c. Margaret-Maria of Hungary was nine when she married Isaac II Angelus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_Hungary

So unless you're willing to call most of the Western aristocracy "rapists" and "pedophiles", it's hard to criticize Muhammed on this score.

__________________
Man up.