Total Posts:811|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Propaganda: Why attach it to Islam

Fatihah
Posts: 7,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 5:39:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
When we watch the media's perception of islam, it tends to be very negative. While islam is advocated as the religion of peace by muslims, the media tends to portray anything but peace, concerning muslims and the religion of islam. Many who claim that islam is not a religion of peace and is a negative religion will say that this is the actual teaching of the qur'an and sunnah. But if one were to ask where in the qur'an and sunnah are these things taught, we discover in fact, that these things are not there. Thus this is propaganda. So my question is, why is propaganda used so much against islam?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 5:43:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
salman rushdie actively opposes islam...

The quran says to behead opposers...

Islamic Cleric issues a fatwa demanding Rushdie's death.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Fatihah
Posts: 7,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 5:51:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 5:43:34 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
salman rushdie actively opposes islam...

The quran says to behead opposers...

Islamic Cleric issues a fatwa demanding Rushdie's death.

Response: There is no such verse in the qur'an.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 5:55:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 5:51:27 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/2/2010 5:43:34 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
salman rushdie actively opposes islam...

The quran says to behead opposers...

Islamic Cleric issues a fatwa demanding Rushdie's death.

Response: There is no such verse in the qur'an.

8.12. Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

8.13. This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger. If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment.

other transaltions say Oppose.

so... Salman Rushdie Contended against Allah and his messenger...

the Islamic cleric issued a fatwa for his head... and the quran supports this.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 6:25:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Tell you what.

I'll tell you why the propaganda is needed when you tell me why Muslim people kill, rape, maim and destroy non-muslims and their property in modern times without fear of rebuke.

And while we're on the subject, Surah 9:29, and I quote:
9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

The tribute, I believe, refers to Dhimmis, and they alone are an atrocity even for ancient times.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
Elliot.exe
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 6:28:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I have spoken to alot of muslims who feel that those who terrorism in the name of allah are not muslims and not of sane mind. I myself think that islam is silly but those who blow themselves up in the name of a God who we can't see and is not there...They need mental help
Fatihah
Posts: 7,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 6:33:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 5:55:48 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/2/2010 5:51:27 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/2/2010 5:43:34 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
salman rushdie actively opposes islam...

The quran says to behead opposers...

Islamic Cleric issues a fatwa demanding Rushdie's death.

Response: There is no such verse in the qur'an.

8.12. Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

8.13. This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger. If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment.

other transaltions say Oppose.

so... Salman Rushdie Contended against Allah and his messenger...

the Islamic cleric issued a fatwa for his head... and the quran supports this.

Response: But what is the context? The very first verse of the chapter says "they ask thee concerning the spoils of war", clearly demonstrating that the verse is concerning war. Verse 15 of the same chapter says, "O ye who believe! when you meet those who disbelieve, advancing in force, turn not your backs to them". The chapter continues to deal with war and mentions in the very next chapter, and other chapters as well, that muslims are not to transgress and fight in self defense. "Except those of the disbelievers with whom you have entered into a treaty and who have not subsequently failed you in anything nor aided anyone against you" (ch.9:4). Thus the meaning of the qur'an in 8:12,13 is to slay the disbelievers in defense of the disbelievers whi try to slay them. Ordering a people to defend themselves is not an act of injustice, thus confirming that the qur'an teaches peace and justice.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 6:43:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 6:25:30 AM, Veridas wrote:
Tell you what.

I'll tell you why the propaganda is needed when you tell me why Muslim people kill, rape, maim and destroy non-muslims and their property in modern times without fear of rebuke.

And while we're on the subject, Surah 9:29, and I quote:
9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

The tribute, I believe, refers to Dhimmis, and they alone are an atrocity even for ancient times.

Response: For starters, you have not stated your objection to the verse, so I don't know where to begin. As for your question concerning muslims killing, you should ask those who kill. Since you asked me, my answer would be for the same reasons non-muslims kill, rape and destroy.
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 6:46:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 6:43:20 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/2/2010 6:25:30 AM, Veridas wrote:
Tell you what.

I'll tell you why the propaganda is needed when you tell me why Muslim people kill, rape, maim and destroy non-muslims and their property in modern times without fear of rebuke.

And while we're on the subject, Surah 9:29, and I quote:
9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

The tribute, I believe, refers to Dhimmis, and they alone are an atrocity even for ancient times.

Response: For starters, you have not stated your objection to the verse, so I don't know where to begin. As for your question concerning muslims killing, you should ask those who kill. Since you asked me, my answer would be for the same reasons non-muslims kill, rape and destroy.

My objection to the verse should be obvious, the fact that you want me to specify what I could possibly find bad about your boly hook saying "fight against people who believe in god but not in allah" while you're standing there calling it a religion of peace says a lot about both you and your religion.

and your answer is predictably evasive, but that's ok, I came prepared.

Honour killings: http://www.independent.co.uk......
Jihad in general: http://www.jihadwatch.org......
genital mutilation: http://www.mtholyoke.edu......
killing converters: http://gulfnews.com......
punishing rape victims: http://www.jihadwatch.org......
killing rape victims: http://www.moriel.org......
public stonings: http://www.apostatesofislam.com......
wife beatings: http://www.answering-islam.org......
pederasty: http://en.wikipedia.org......
genocide: http://en.wikipedia.org......
chauvinism: http://www.realclearpolitics.com......
sexism: http://www.themodernreligion.com......
Dhimmis: http://en.wikipedia.org......

Muslim-specific atrocities. You may begin your explanation...now!
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 6:53:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
context is all well and good.

and the chapter is about war.

BUT if in a chapter about war I say: Pink hippo's are Evil..

Then that doesn't mean: Pink hippo's IN WAR are evil.

it means plainly: Pink hippo's are evil.

In the case of the verse I brought up it says: smite opposer's/contender's necks

This was said in a chapter about war.... BUT it doesn't qualify saying: smite the necks of those who you are at war with....

It says: smite the necks of those who oppose allah and his messenger.

Pink hippo's are evil regardless of whether War is happening.
Opposer's necks should be smote regardless of whether war is happening.

I know I "OPPOSE ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER" and apparently that Islamic Cleric believed that Salman Rushdie did too.

And some people think Western reporters do too... Hence the beheading of that reporter.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 6:57:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
you interpret away the meaning of

this is because they opposed Allah and his messenger

that line qualifies exactly WHY people's necks ought be smote.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 6:58:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 6:57:19 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
that line qualifies exactly WHY people's necks ought be smote.

and it says NOTHING of war.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 6:59:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Salman Rushdie actively opposed Allah and his Messenger.

I actively oppose Allah and his messenger.

The quran says such people should be smote at the neck.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Fatihah
Posts: 7,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 7:12:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 6:46:43 AM, Veridas wrote:
At 7/2/2010 6:43:20 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/2/2010 6:25:30 AM, Veridas wrote:
Tell you what.

I'll tell you why the propaganda is needed when you tell me why Muslim people kill, rape, maim and destroy non-muslims and their property in modern times without fear of rebuke.

And while we're on the subject, Surah 9:29, and I quote:
9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

The tribute, I believe, refers to Dhimmis, and they alone are an atrocity even for ancient times.

Response: For starters, you have not stated your objection to the verse, so I don't know where to begin. As for your question concerning muslims killing, you should ask those who kill. Since you asked me, my answer would be for the same reasons non-muslims kill, rape and destroy.

My objection to the verse should be obvious, the fact that you want me to specify what I could possibly find bad about your boly hook saying "fight against people who believe in god but not in allah" while you're standing there calling it a religion of peace says a lot about both you and your religion.

and your answer is predictably evasive, but that's ok, I came prepared.

Honour killings: http://www.independent.co.uk......
Jihad in general: http://www.jihadwatch.org......
genital mutilation: http://www.mtholyoke.edu......
killing converters: http://gulfnews.com......
punishing rape victims: http://www.jihadwatch.org......
killing rape victims: http://www.moriel.org......
public stonings: http://www.apostatesofislam.com......
wife beatings: http://www.answering-islam.org......
pederasty: http://en.wikipedia.org......
genocide: http://en.wikipedia.org......
chauvinism: http://www.realclearpolitics.com......
sexism: http://www.themodernreligion.com......
Dhimmis: http://en.wikipedia.org......

Muslim-specific atrocities. You may begin your explanation...now!

Response: When asked why propaganda is necessary for islam, you dodge the question with a question of your own. When asked to explain why you object to the verse you mentioned in your question, you dodge that question as well. Then you conclude that I'm being evasive? The hypocrisy is uncanny. Thus what you've done thus far is once again demonstrate that not only is there no evidence in the qur'an that shows that it teaches injustice, but the rather feeble propaganda attempted to make it appear so. Thus confirming that islam is a religion of peace. To that, I thank you.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 7:22:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 5:39:01 AM, Fatihah wrote:
When we watch the media's perception of islam, it tends to be very negative. While islam is advocated as the religion of peace by muslims, the media tends to portray anything but peace, concerning muslims and the religion of islam. Many who claim that islam is not a religion of peace and is a negative religion will say that this is the actual teaching of the qur'an and sunnah. But if one were to ask where in the qur'an and sunnah are these things taught, we discover in fact, that these things are not there. Thus this is propaganda. So my question is, why is propaganda used so much against islam?

To non-Muslims the contents of the Qur'an and such like is of only academic interest. The fact is that as Muslims have attacked new york, london, Madrid, Munich etc, and that almost every Islamic country is suffering from violence directly attributable to religion... we are going to take a dim view of the social force known as Islam.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 7:22:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 6:53:36 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
context is all well and good.

and the chapter is about war.

BUT if in a chapter about war I say: Pink hippo's are Evil..

Then that doesn't mean: Pink hippo's IN WAR are evil.

it means plainly: Pink hippo's are evil.

In the case of the verse I brought up it says: smite opposer's/contender's necks

This was said in a chapter about war.... BUT it doesn't qualify saying: smite the necks of those who you are at war with....

It says: smite the necks of those who oppose allah and his messenger.

Pink hippo's are evil regardless of whether War is happening.
Opposer's necks should be smote regardless of whether war is happening.

I know I "OPPOSE ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER" and apparently that Islamic Cleric believed that Salman Rushdie did too.

And some people think Western reporters do too... Hence the beheading of that reporter.

Response: Then according to your logic, context is not important and should not acknowledged. Then according to your logic, you believe in "Pink Hippos who are evil". Now of course there is a context in which you mentioned pink hippos, but according to your logic, context is not relevant. So I'm asking the question, where have you seen a Pink hippo and how do you know they are evil? This question is very important because I personally don't have interest in engaging in dialogue with one who believe's in something which is completely illogical like pink hippos.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 7:27:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 7:22:11 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/2/2010 6:53:36 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
context is all well and good.

and the chapter is about war.

BUT if in a chapter about war I say: Pink hippo's are Evil..

Then that doesn't mean: Pink hippo's IN WAR are evil.

it means plainly: Pink hippo's are evil.

In the case of the verse I brought up it says: smite opposer's/contender's necks

This was said in a chapter about war.... BUT it doesn't qualify saying: smite the necks of those who you are at war with....

It says: smite the necks of those who oppose allah and his messenger.

Pink hippo's are evil regardless of whether War is happening.
Opposer's necks should be smote regardless of whether war is happening.

I know I "OPPOSE ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER" and apparently that Islamic Cleric believed that Salman Rushdie did too.

And some people think Western reporters do too... Hence the beheading of that reporter.

Response: Then according to your logic, context is not important and should not acknowledged. Then according to your logic, you believe in "Pink Hippos who are evil". Now of course there is a context in which you mentioned pink hippos, but according to your logic, context is not relevant. So I'm asking the question, where have you seen a Pink hippo and how do you know they are evil? This question is very important because I personally don't have interest in engaging in dialogue with one who believe's in something which is completely illogical like pink hippos.

the context in which I mentioned Pink hippos was as a hypothetical analogy for the thing we're actually talking about.

In discussing a particular battle... The Quran says that necks should be smote... THEN it explains WHY... it says they should be smote because they oppose Allah

SOME people take "Opposers of Allah" to mean "people you're at war with"

Others take "Opposers of Allah" to mean people who work (in whatever way) against the message of Allah.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Fatihah
Posts: 7,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 7:30:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 7:22:06 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/2/2010 5:39:01 AM, Fatihah wrote:
When we watch the media's perception of islam, it tends to be very negative. While islam is advocated as the religion of peace by muslims, the media tends to portray anything but peace, concerning muslims and the religion of islam. Many who claim that islam is not a religion of peace and is a negative religion will say that this is the actual teaching of the qur'an and sunnah. But if one were to ask where in the qur'an and sunnah are these things taught, we discover in fact, that these things are not there. Thus this is propaganda. So my question is, why is propaganda used so much against islam?

To non-Muslims the contents of the Qur'an and such like is of only academic interest. The fact is that as Muslims have attacked new york, london, Madrid, Munich etc, and that almost every Islamic country is suffering from violence directly attributable to religion... we are going to take a dim view of the social force known as Islam.

Response: One should look at islam closey. And one should also take a dim look at the oppression that muslims went through inder the oppressive regimes of the West as well which gives a much clearer answer as to why muslims are in fact attacking the West. Though I do not condone their actions, nor is it the teaching of islam.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 7:34:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 7:30:20 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/2/2010 7:22:06 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/2/2010 5:39:01 AM, Fatihah wrote:
When we watch the media's perception of islam, it tends to be very negative. While islam is advocated as the religion of peace by muslims, the media tends to portray anything but peace, concerning muslims and the religion of islam. Many who claim that islam is not a religion of peace and is a negative religion will say that this is the actual teaching of the qur'an and sunnah. But if one were to ask where in the qur'an and sunnah are these things taught, we discover in fact, that these things are not there. Thus this is propaganda. So my question is, why is propaganda used so much against islam?

To non-Muslims the contents of the Qur'an and such like is of only academic interest. The fact is that as Muslims have attacked new york, london, Madrid, Munich etc, and that almost every Islamic country is suffering from violence directly attributable to religion... we are going to take a dim view of the social force known as Islam.

Response: One should look at islam closey. And one should also take a dim look at the oppression that muslims went through inder the oppressive regimes of the West

There is no such oppression, Muslims are being oppressed by fellow Muslims, the west provides a convenient scapegoat. It is not our fault that most Islamic countries are backward and violent.

as well which gives a much clearer answer as to why muslims are in fact attacking the West. Though I do not condone their actions, nor is it the teaching of islam.

If its not the teaching of Islam you should be referring to these Muslims as apostates or some such.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
vivalayeo
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 7:36:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 7:12:29 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/2/2010 6:46:43 AM, Veridas wrote:
At 7/2/2010 6:43:20 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/2/2010 6:25:30 AM, Veridas wrote:
Tell you what.

I'll tell you why the propaganda is needed when you tell me why Muslim people kill, rape, maim and destroy non-muslims and their property in modern times without fear of rebuke.

And while we're on the subject, Surah 9:29, and I quote:
9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

The tribute, I believe, refers to Dhimmis, and they alone are an atrocity even for ancient times.

Response: For starters, you have not stated your objection to the verse, so I don't know where to begin. As for your question concerning muslims killing, you should ask those who kill. Since you asked me, my answer would be for the same reasons non-muslims kill, rape and destroy.

My objection to the verse should be obvious, the fact that you want me to specify what I could possibly find bad about your boly hook saying "fight against people who believe in god but not in allah" while you're standing there calling it a religion of peace says a lot about both you and your religion.

and your answer is predictably evasive, but that's ok, I came prepared.

Honour killings: http://www.independent.co.uk......
Jihad in general: http://www.jihadwatch.org......
genital mutilation: http://www.mtholyoke.edu......
killing converters: http://gulfnews.com......
punishing rape victims: http://www.jihadwatch.org......
killing rape victims: http://www.moriel.org......
public stonings: http://www.apostatesofislam.com......
wife beatings: http://www.answering-islam.org......
pederasty: http://en.wikipedia.org......
genocide: http://en.wikipedia.org......
chauvinism: http://www.realclearpolitics.com......
sexism: http://www.themodernreligion.com......
Dhimmis: http://en.wikipedia.org......

Muslim-specific atrocities. You may begin your explanation...now!

Response: When asked why propaganda is necessary for islam, you dodge the question with a question of your own. When asked to explain why you object to the verse you mentioned in your question, you dodge that question as well. Then you conclude that I'm being evasive? The hypocrisy is uncanny. Thus what you've done thus far is once again demonstrate that not only is there no evidence in the qur'an that shows that it teaches injustice, but the rather feeble propaganda attempted to make it appear so. Thus confirming that islam is a religion of peace. To that, I thank you.

You're an idiot who is blatantly trying to avoid answering. He didn't dodge the question, he is explaining that this 'propaganda' isn't propaganda at all when it's based on truth. He has researched that and found it for himself. So have I, Islam is not a religion of peace, nor should it be given the same right's as a religion. Any religion that tell's me I am inferior, a Dhimmi and that if I don't submit, my life is forfeit, well sorry but you get no respect from me.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 7:41:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 7:27:04 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/2/2010 7:22:11 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/2/2010 6:53:36 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
context is all well and good.

and the chapter is about war.

BUT if in a chapter about war I say: Pink hippo's are Evil..

Then that doesn't mean: Pink hippo's IN WAR are evil.

it means plainly: Pink hippo's are evil.

In the case of the verse I brought up it says: smite opposer's/contender's necks

This was said in a chapter about war.... BUT it doesn't qualify saying: smite the necks of those who you are at war with....

It says: smite the necks of those who oppose allah and his messenger.

Pink hippo's are evil regardless of whether War is happening.
Opposer's necks should be smote regardless of whether war is happening.

I know I "OPPOSE ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER" and apparently that Islamic Cleric believed that Salman Rushdie did too.

And some people think Western reporters do too... Hence the beheading of that reporter.

Response: Then according to your logic, context is not important and should not acknowledged. Then according to your logic, you believe in "Pink Hippos who are evil". Now of course there is a context in which you mentioned pink hippos, but according to your logic, context is not relevant. So I'm asking the question, where have you seen a Pink hippo and how do you know they are evil? This question is very important because I personally don't have interest in engaging in dialogue with one who believe's in something which is completely illogical like pink hippos.

the context in which I mentioned Pink hippos was as a hypothetical analogy for the thing we're actually talking about.

In discussing a particular battle... The Quran says that necks should be smote... THEN it explains WHY... it says they should be smote because they oppose Allah

SOME people take "Opposers of Allah" to mean "people you're at war with"

Others take "Opposers of Allah" to mean people who work (in whatever way) against the message of Allah.

Response: Yet the word "hypothetical" is not mentioned in the statement, "Pink hippos are evil". It's hypothetical according to the context. But according to your logic, context is irrelevant. So this means that you believe in Evil Pink Hippos. And one who believes in such illogical claims, their arguments are clearly not credible. Thus your claim concerning the verse in the qur'an is not credible, thus demonstrating that islam is a just and peaceful religion.
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 7:44:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Response: When asked why propaganda is necessary for islam, you dodge the question with a question of your own. When asked to explain why you object to the verse you mentioned in your question, you dodge that question as well. Then you conclude that I'm being evasive? The hypocrisy is uncanny. Thus what you've done thus far is once again demonstrate that not only is there no evidence in the qur'an that shows that it teaches injustice, but the rather feeble propaganda attempted to make it appear so. Thus confirming that islam is a religion of peace. To that, I thank you.

Congratulations, you have just proven why the propaganda is needed.

You choose not to see the violence in a passage from your holy book, therefore you say that your holy book has no violence.

You propose a challenge to people about propaganda about violence, and when you are presented with a dilemma about violence and atrocities specific to Islam you accuse me of hypocrisy rather than answer for it.

In fact, you accuse me of hypocrisy despite voluntarily putting yourself up to be challenged, and then not only failing to adhere to my challenge, but insinuating that you challenged me with my so-called evasiveness.

You said the reason why muslims that kill and rape and so on have the same reasons for doing so as non-muslims. Fair enough, but my answer to that was to provide islam-specific examples, examples that simply do not exist in the non-islamic world or if they do they aren't committed in the name of god.

Surah 9:29 is all the evidence I need that the qu'ran teaches injustice, because that passage alone calls for the "attack" of anyone who doesn't believe as muslims do, and I could search for more passages if you like, I'm sure it wouldn't be hard.

So to prove I'm not evading anything, I'll answer your initial question. The reason why the media chooses to report SOME of the atriocities committed by muslims (because I can promise you, websites like Jihadwatch will report islamic violence that most media outlets are blissfully ignorant of) is because if they didn't, people like you would probably be blisfully ignorant that any violence is happening at all, because you reject our reality and substitute your own even when faced with evidence of violence and hate that you can't say is the fault of anyone other than another muslim, and that alone contradicts your teachings. It's necessary because unless it was being shoved down people's throats you'd probably never admit that muslims do anything violent ever, and it's necessary because you have the audacity to give your own religion a title like "religion of peace" when your clerics preach hate, your holy book tells of war against people that said "no" to your prophet, and your entire mindset is a willfully blind testament to the power of propagnda.

We speak freely and openly about what you do because it forces you to think. Forces you to accept that you do have violence and you do have hate whether your holy book commands it or not, we do it because it has already been happening to you ever since you converted, or perhaps even before then, it just hasn't been coming from us, it's been coming from whoever told you that islam is a religion of peace.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 7:48:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 7:41:58 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/2/2010 7:27:04 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/2/2010 7:22:11 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/2/2010 6:53:36 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
context is all well and good.

and the chapter is about war.

BUT if in a chapter about war I say: Pink hippo's are Evil..

Then that doesn't mean: Pink hippo's IN WAR are evil.

it means plainly: Pink hippo's are evil.

In the case of the verse I brought up it says: smite opposer's/contender's necks

This was said in a chapter about war.... BUT it doesn't qualify saying: smite the necks of those who you are at war with....

It says: smite the necks of those who oppose allah and his messenger.

Pink hippo's are evil regardless of whether War is happening.
Opposer's necks should be smote regardless of whether war is happening.

I know I "OPPOSE ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER" and apparently that Islamic Cleric believed that Salman Rushdie did too.

And some people think Western reporters do too... Hence the beheading of that reporter.

Response: Then according to your logic, context is not important and should not acknowledged. Then according to your logic, you believe in "Pink Hippos who are evil". Now of course there is a context in which you mentioned pink hippos, but according to your logic, context is not relevant. So I'm asking the question, where have you seen a Pink hippo and how do you know they are evil? This question is very important because I personally don't have interest in engaging in dialogue with one who believe's in something which is completely illogical like pink hippos.

the context in which I mentioned Pink hippos was as a hypothetical analogy for the thing we're actually talking about.

In discussing a particular battle... The Quran says that necks should be smote... THEN it explains WHY... it says they should be smote because they oppose Allah

SOME people take "Opposers of Allah" to mean "people you're at war with"

Others take "Opposers of Allah" to mean people who work (in whatever way) against the message of Allah.

Response: Yet the word "hypothetical" is not mentioned in the statement, "Pink hippos are evil". It's hypothetical according to the context. But according to your logic, context is irrelevant. So this means that you believe in Evil Pink Hippos. And one who believes in such illogical claims, their arguments are clearly not credible. Thus your claim concerning the verse in the qur'an is not credible, thus demonstrating that islam is a just and peaceful religion.

lol.

I never said context was irrelevant

I said that it's relevance is dependent on how things are said.

If you say "What might Hitler have said?" and I say: "I hate Jews" then clearly context is all-important.

If you say "why did Hitler kill jews?" and I say: "because they are a no good inhuman despicable black mark on the face of the earth" then QUALIFICATION that this is what Hitler would think, would be appropriate... OR ELSE people might interpret this to mean that I think that they are such....

The quran can be interpreted both ways.

IT IS interpreted both ways.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 7:52:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 7:48:44 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
IT IS interpreted both ways.

that's why there are people who claim to be devout Muslims who behead "opposers" like western Journalists.

and that's why Islamic Clerics can issue fatwa's for death upon such "opposers".
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 7:54:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 7:52:19 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
and that's why Islamic Clerics can issue fatwa's for death upon such "opposers".

not opposers who make war... but opposers who subvert/distort or just renounce the message of Allah and his messenger.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 7:57:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Actually I just realised what a perfect example of muslim logic you made, you ask someone to challenge you on your religion, the challenge is accepted, the challenger brings up the topic of violence and you say "everyone does it, it isn't just us" and when the challenger brings up examples of Islam-specific atrocities...you attack him in whatever means you can, in this case only verbally.

Very peaceful.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
Fatihah
Posts: 7,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 8:02:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 7:44:43 AM, Veridas wrote:
Response: When asked why propaganda is necessary for islam, you dodge the question with a question of your own. When asked to explain why you object to the verse you mentioned in your question, you dodge that question as well. Then you conclude that I'm being evasive? The hypocrisy is uncanny. Thus what you've done thus far is once again demonstrate that not only is there no evidence in the qur'an that shows that it teaches injustice, but the rather feeble propaganda attempted to make it appear so. Thus confirming that islam is a religion of peace. To that, I thank you.


Congratulations, you have just proven why the propaganda is needed.

You choose not to see the violence in a passage from your holy book, therefore you say that your holy book has no violence.

You propose a challenge to people about propaganda about violence, and when you are presented with a dilemma about violence and atrocities specific to Islam you accuse me of hypocrisy rather than answer for it.

In fact, you accuse me of hypocrisy despite voluntarily putting yourself up to be challenged, and then not only failing to adhere to my challenge, but insinuating that you challenged me with my so-called evasiveness.

You said the reason why muslims that kill and rape and so on have the same reasons for doing so as non-muslims. Fair enough, but my answer to that was to provide islam-specific examples, examples that simply do not exist in the non-islamic world or if they do they aren't committed in the name of god.

Surah 9:29 is all the evidence I need that the qu'ran teaches injustice, because that passage alone calls for the "attack" of anyone who doesn't believe as muslims do, and I could search for more passages if you like, I'm sure it wouldn't be hard.

So to prove I'm not evading anything, I'll answer your initial question. The reason why the media chooses to report SOME of the atriocities committed by muslims (because I can promise you, websites like Jihadwatch will report islamic violence that most media outlets are blissfully ignorant of) is because if they didn't, people like you would probably be blisfully ignorant that any violence is happening at all, because you reject our reality and substitute your own even when faced with evidence of violence and hate that you can't say is the fault of anyone other than another muslim, and that alone contradicts your teachings. It's necessary because unless it was being shoved down people's throats you'd probably never admit that muslims do anything violent ever, and it's necessary because you have the audacity to give your own religion a title like "religion of peace" when your clerics preach hate, your holy book tells of war against people that said "no" to your prophet, and your entire mindset is a willfully blind testament to the power of propagnda.

We speak freely and openly about what you do because it forces you to think. Forces you to accept that you do have violence and you do have hate whether your holy book commands it or not, we do it because it has already been happening to you ever since you converted, or perhaps even before then, it just hasn't been coming from us, it's been coming from whoever told you that islam is a religion of peace.

Response: You quote the verse saying to "fight" those who disbelieve. Now you've changed it to "attack". Why change the word? The reason is obvious. It's because the verse clearly does not go against peace or justice, so you've reduced yourself to changing the words to prove your point. Thus there is no need to explaining the verse to you, because your action alone show that you are clearly in denial, which is why your changing the words.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 8:05:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 7:52:19 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/2/2010 7:48:44 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
IT IS interpreted both ways.

that's why there are people who claim to be devout Muslims who behead "opposers" like western Journalists.

even YOU are claiming that Western Journalists distort the message of Allah.

SO... given the other plausible interpretation of "opposers" it ought to be quite obvious why muslims go about beheading journalists... you would too (supposedly) if you had a more loose interpretation of "opposers"

FURTHER... I would imagine many Muslims are much more humble in their interpretations of scripture... And ASSUME that if the Quran meant to limit the smiting to ONLY war it would have been more explicit... why would the word of GOD be open to mis-interpretation on such weighty issues???

The quran says "opposers" of allah and messenger should be beheaded... AND good muslims don't seek to impose limits on those Holy words that aren't EXPLICIT. You're interpreting of Context containing the scope of HOLY WORDS might not sit too well with many muslims.

who is a man to interpret the quran in any way but plainly? If God wanted only opposing Forces in war to be beheaded He would have said so.

Instead he said opposers ought to be beheaded.

There are many kinds of opposers.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Fatihah
Posts: 7,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 8:09:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 7:48:44 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/2/2010 7:41:58 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/2/2010 7:27:04 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 7/2/2010 7:22:11 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/2/2010 6:53:36 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
context is all well and good.

and the chapter is about war.

BUT if in a chapter about war I say: Pink hippo's are Evil..

Then that doesn't mean: Pink hippo's IN WAR are evil.

it means plainly: Pink hippo's are evil.

In the case of the verse I brought up it says: smite opposer's/contender's necks

This was said in a chapter about war.... BUT it doesn't qualify saying: smite the necks of those who you are at war with....

It says: smite the necks of those who oppose allah and his messenger.

Pink hippo's are evil regardless of whether War is happening.
Opposer's necks should be smote regardless of whether war is happening.

I know I "OPPOSE ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER" and apparently that Islamic Cleric believed that Salman Rushdie did too.

And some people think Western reporters do too... Hence the beheading of that reporter.

Response: Then according to your logic, context is not important and should not acknowledged. Then according to your logic, you believe in "Pink Hippos who are evil". Now of course there is a context in which you mentioned pink hippos, but according to your logic, context is not relevant. So I'm asking the question, where have you seen a Pink hippo and how do you know they are evil? This question is very important because I personally don't have interest in engaging in dialogue with one who believe's in something which is completely illogical like pink hippos.

the context in which I mentioned Pink hippos was as a hypothetical analogy for the thing we're actually talking about.

In discussing a particular battle... The Quran says that necks should be smote... THEN it explains WHY... it says they should be smote because they oppose Allah

SOME people take "Opposers of Allah" to mean "people you're at war with"

Others take "Opposers of Allah" to mean people who work (in whatever way) against the message of Allah.

Response: Yet the word "hypothetical" is not mentioned in the statement, "Pink hippos are evil". It's hypothetical according to the context. But according to your logic, context is irrelevant. So this means that you believe in Evil Pink Hippos. And one who believes in such illogical claims, their arguments are clearly not credible. Thus your claim concerning the verse in the qur'an is not credible, thus demonstrating that islam is a just and peaceful religion.

lol.

I never said context was irrelevant

I said that it's relevance is dependent on how things are said.

If you say "What might Hitler have said?" and I say: "I hate Jews" then clearly context is all-important.

If you say "why did Hitler kill jews?" and I say: "because they are a no good inhuman despicable black mark on the face of the earth" then QUALIFICATION that this is what Hitler would think, would be appropriate... OR ELSE people might interpret this to mean that I think that they are such....

The quran can be interpreted both ways.

IT IS interpreted both ways.

Response: When the context mentions nothing of muslims being the aggressors but that the non-muslims are, then there is only one interpretation, and that is that muslims only acted in self-defense.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 8:10:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
A religion of peace would argue for you not to engage in violence of any kind - ever.

Buddhism is a religion of peace. It never teaches you how to behave in "times of war" or, in other words how to behave in times of lesser jihad - which is what your book means by "war". I'm sure you know what the lesser jihad says :) Where a religion like Buddhism, or Jainism mentions that you should never behave violently, Islam is backwards and tells you to engage in it. This is why it's not a religion of peace.

Islam is a religion of disgusting violence.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.