Does the murder of a Christian couple in Pakistan prove Islam is a religion of violence?

Posted by: DavidMGold

  • Yes. If a Muslim cleric can accuse a couple of blasphemy on a loudspeaker of a mosque and 1,200 devout Muslims form a mob to drag them out of a factory they'd been locked in for two days throwing bricks at them, beating them in a horrific way, and finally burning them alive in a furnace even though the woman was pregnant.

  • No. This cleric and these devout Muslims must somehow misunderstand Islam despite it being the central aspect of their entire life.

50% 14 votes
50% 14 votes
  • Islam is the devil.

  • In the book the Muslims follow it commands them kill off other religions. They kill of Christians but why? They have no justifiable reason. They don't misunderstand anything. They shouldn't be killing anyone.

  • I am not religious but yes. It has become a religion of ignorance after nearly a century of Wahhabi and silencing those who do not believe.

    Posted by: Warik
  • Islam is a violent religion. Most of the people who follow it are not violent people. However the people following the Qu'aran or whatever religious Islamic book, do not follow it word for word - if they did, almost everyone would be like ISIS, trying to take over the world and killing non believers.

  • Islam has accomplished nothing. Although most Muslims are nonviolent, there have been so many cases of murder and genocide in the name of Allah.

  • Yes it is very racist and they are the new nazis of this world...

  • I could say the same for Christianity.

    Posted by: reece
  • The KKK is considered a Christian group. Just as all these groups that are violent "Muslim" groups killing other religions should not be considered a portrayal of the overall religion. I'm not Muslim or Christian but I do know that in the Quram it says that no believer of Allah shall not kill or hate anyone. All these groups and modern versions of these religions change the essence of that Islam and Christianity is supposed to be.

    Posted by: alas
  • We only think Muslims are violent because the only ones we ever hear about are blowing stuff up and killing people. I'm sure there are plenty of Christians who have committed terrorist acts. Most people just haven't seen what Muslim culture is like and judge only the ones who have committed terrorist attacks.

  • Just because someone got kill but a Muslim doesn't means that Islam is a violent religion is Christianity a religion that talks down on other religions just to make their self look good

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
reece says2014-11-08T12:21:30.4907644-06:00
Anyone that's fundamental about their religion is a danger to society.It doesn't matter if their muslim, christian or what ever.
DavidMGold says2014-11-08T12:33:17.0637089-06:00
Reece, that is a total evasion of the actual teachings of Islam, and feel free to compare to other religions, and it matters when practically one faith (Islam) is behind carnage worldwide.
reece says2014-11-08T12:38:03.5335987-06:00
@DavidMGold How is it an evasion? And do you think the billion+ Islam people around the world support the carnage?
missmedic says2014-11-08T12:38:56.6532161-06:00
Americans are hypocrites, look at the numbers. In the past 30 years Americans have killed almost 300,000 Muslims. Muslims have killed just over 10,000 Americans.
reece says2014-11-08T12:48:05.3621408-06:00
@DavidMGold you're an idiot if you think you can generalize them.
blackkid says2014-11-08T12:48:40.1967175-06:00
No one should ever use an incident to set the precedent for an entire philosophy.
DavidMGold says2014-11-08T13:15:16.0508876-06:00
Reece, sure they support it in Islamic countries, especially those governed by Sharia, but you are refusing to examine the actual teaching of the faith trying to argue from a morally relative position rather than provide actual justification.
DavidMGold says2014-11-08T13:18:17.7273230-06:00
Reece, you're an idiot. I propose a simple experiment to test what the empirical evidence overwhelmingly shows...I want you to travel to an Islamic country and express not a criticism but your sappy politically correct view about how no religion can be "fundamental." How about we put Pakistan on the list first?
reece says2014-11-08T13:43:45.0061149-06:00
@DavidMGold i'm arguing from a morally relative position because you're being ironic. What justification do i need to provide? I didn't say no religion can be fundamental?
reece says2014-11-08T13:53:57.4154173-06:00
@LydiaCone Wrong, the Quran dictates that Christians and jews are people of the book and that they received divine scripture, etc. Don't talk rubbish.
DavidMGold says2014-11-08T14:22:09.6867590-06:00
Reece, you are avoiding the specific example and a larger discussion of the teachings of Islam by referring to an abstract argument that misleading implies all religions are the same in their tenets and teachings. You don't even attempt to get into empirical examples or my proposal that we could easily test in an experiment that we may not take seriously but couldn't deny the outcome.
DavidMGold says2014-11-08T14:23:46.4841385-06:00
Reece, actually it says they corrupted their books and makes numerous derogatory statements about Jews and Christians as well as non-Muslims in general, which they are command to fight.
reece says2014-11-08T14:32:56.5834122-06:00
@DavidMGold I'm asking you questions about what i need to provide, etc and you're ignoring them by saying i'm avoiding it...
DavidMGold says2014-11-08T14:33:05.8372317-06:00
Missmedic, aside from suggesting we are hypocritical for not perishing at the same rate as our enemies as well as ignoring how other non-Muslims have perished and great rates when lacking the military prowess and strength of the US...I would also suggest your figures aren't hard numbers. To give an example, some of the more outrageous tallies in Iraq were a result of canvassing a few neighborhoods in a few Iraqi cities and taking any report of a death which depends solely on the veracity of the people asked...To extrapolate it in even more questionable way...To provide these astounding Iraq War body counts regardless of who did the killing. Not only do we not have to suffer equal casualty rates, the attack on the WTC in 2001 is not morally equivalent to bombing a Taliban stronghold in response.
reece says2014-11-08T14:33:50.0286696-06:00
@DavidMGold yes, it's contradictory like other religious books.
DavidMGold says2014-11-08T14:36:13.8844533-06:00
Reece , so let me get this straight, it is my responsibility to tell you what you need to provide as evidence to make your argument? How about an actual argument that this specific example in Pakistan motivated purely by Islamic beliefs has no connection to Islam? How about referencing case of other religious faiths engaging in the same acts with the same regularity?
DavidMGold says2014-11-08T14:37:58.3166780-06:00
Reece, when talking about Islam, it is called abrogation.
reece says2014-11-08T14:40:52.4895615-06:00
@DavidMGold Read what i first said up the top.Of course not everyone is fundamental in their Islam beliefs and i'm not going to justify the people that are.
reece says2014-11-08T14:44:33.4153453-06:00
@DavidMGold it's called abrogation when you repeal any law, right or agreement.
DavidMGold says2014-11-08T14:47:03.0183863-06:00
Alas, the KKK is considered a racist organization, not a religious organization, but as frustrated as I am at having to repeatedly having to refute this shoddy example as part of even more fallacious example of moral equivalence. It doesn't references Christian teaching or scripture as a basis for anything it stands for and it at most as 10,000 members in a country of 320,000,000 or more people and it doesn't exist beyond the U.S. and you would have us believe this is a parallel to Islamic Jihad warfare and violence specifically sanctioned in the Qu'ran, the Hadiths, and through the 1,400 years or more of Islamic history that can be demonstrated through an array of Islamic governments, organizations, and other entities in many places throughout the world? As for your claim about what the Qu'ran says, you are lying and I challenge you to debate this and I'll start with the verse of the sword in Surah 9:5.
DavidMGold says2014-11-08T15:01:30.0405281-06:00
Reece, so your argument is that not all people are devout in their Islamic belief therefore Islam is not a violent religion regardless of explicit commands to wage warfare, kill, fight, and slay; so you are abandoning the contention admitting it can quite clearly be violent but you say that not all people who profess it will follow it but again I would contest this claim when you wouldn't get away with your life in an Islamic country with even innocuous criticisms of Islam and that suggests that more than less do take their Islamic faith seriously. It would only seem in the presence of a larger non-Muslim population and society where you find a restraint although the beheading of Lee Rigby in Britain, the plot to behead the Queen of England, and many others would suggest a willingness to commit acts of violence despite it.
DavidMGold says2014-11-08T15:11:59.5478689-06:00
Blackkid, really? So we cannot judge Nazism by examining the Holocaust?
reece says2014-11-08T15:17:09.4342145-06:00
@DavidMGold you shouldn't have your expectations high for third world country's.
DavidMGold says2014-11-08T15:21:25.0443681-06:00
Reece, I will however grant you that there are some people that don't take their religion seriously whether it serves as a sort of identity (someone born into a Muslim family) or other reasons.
reece says2014-11-08T15:24:41.1281961-06:00
@DavidMGold i guarantee hundreds of millions don't take their religion seriously or there would be a lot more havoc in the world
reece says2014-11-08T15:26:30.8960075-06:00
They just say some texts are metaphors...
reece says2014-11-08T15:27:40.5651609-06:00
Or they make up excuses out of their @ss
Karmanator says2014-11-08T17:08:04.7800112-06:00
There are verses in the quaran that call to kill infidels wherever they are and several verses calling believers to fight. Those are what we call fighting words and quran is full of that tyoe of rhetoric. Seems violence is the norm for people who take Islam seriously. A non-violent religion wouldnt call for so much revenge and bloodshed, even if it claims peace for the worthy afterwards.
DavidMGold says2014-11-08T17:58:39.0115772-06:00
Mister_Man, we are not talking about genetic traits as a cause behind a violent act and that's a red herring. We're not talking about the Christian teaching on homosexuality. If you were to inquire about the Islamic view you would find - the Hanafi school proscribes a penalty of homosexual being punished through harsh beating and if they repeat the act the death penalty is to be applied, the Shafi'i school proscribes a penalty as that in adultery (stoning to death if married and 100 lashes if unmarried), and Muhammad offered "If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done." What is unfortunate is your views are based on fallacies and evasions to the rejection of empirical evidence from contemporary events in the world or the more abhorrent history over the past 1,400 years. In case you hadn't noticed, the Middle East is the heart of the Islamic World with the exception of Israel, which it has tried to erase and continues trying to erase from the map. It is stunning you could deny the cause and effect relationship between beliefs/teachings in the violence and hatred.
DavidMGold says2014-11-08T18:04:57.9913315-06:00
Rphk123, I'm sure you are basing your belief (I'm sure plenty of Christians are) on ignorance because I'd happily invite you to a comparison or a debate on terrorist acts motivated by religious teaching. I'm sure you are just trying to deny the carnage, bombings, killings, and general violence throughout the world with a plea that you believe there must be a Christian doing something bad although you'd have a hard time referencing "turn the other cheek" or "pray for those who persecute you." You're obviously someone totally oblivious to what Islam teaches and what it is like to live in an Islamic country when we have this example or individuals like Ayaan Hirsi Ali to give us an account of her experience.
DavidMGold says2014-11-08T18:16:05.2680036-06:00
Amazing, we have 67% voting no and the only one to defend his vote ended by saying the Islamic World is the Third World therefore we can't hold them to our standards or have any expectations for them. It is a total repudiation of reason.
Karmanator says2014-11-08T23:51:57.8179224-06:00
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm There are over 100 verses calling Muslims to war against unbelievers, to chop off heads and fingers and kill them wherever they may hide. If that is a religion of peace they would need to ignore a ton of their own religious texts. What are violent Muslims misunderstanding?
Mister_Man says2014-11-09T00:15:29.1200759-06:00
Unfortunately you guys are right. I think the question I was answering was "are the current actions of muslims a reflection of a religion of peace" or something along those lines... Most muslims are nice people, however I would agree if they followed the Q'aran word for word, there would be a hell of a lot of bad stuff going on.
reece says2014-11-09T03:02:23.5085608-06:00
@DavidMGold Don't try and find a stick man.I hate it when people do that.
reece says2014-11-09T03:05:25.6217934-06:00
@DavidMGold And no, i didn't end by saying that.
DavidMGold says2014-11-09T07:44:31.1784494-06:00
Mister_Man, the problem is I referenced a specific case from Pakistan of a brutal torture and horrific murder of a non-Muslim couple specifically caused by rumors and allegations of blasphemy. The question was does this prove Islam is a religion of violence? So now you have conceded the point entirely regarding the Qu'ran, but why vote no in the first place and why maintain the vote? The problem with the qualifying statement that "most Muslims are nice people" is that a) it is purely a belief as opposed to an argument that doesn't address the issue and b) the above example would militate against it.
DavidMGold says2014-11-09T08:16:55.9399829-06:00
Reece, you did end on that, but I'm not trying to savage you for it or single you out. I do strongly disagree that the Islamic World can be held to much lower standards in the world or that we must have lower expectations of the Muslims. I give you credit for being willing to discuss your views because although 2 out 3 people disagree with me on my poll, only you have shown a willingness to debate the issue. I'm interested in a debate on a topic that I believe is incredibly important. Mister_Man says for instance, "...If they followed the Q'aran word for word, there would be a hell of a lot of bad stuff going on." Are there not a "hell of a lot" of things we can point to in the world today?
reece says2014-11-09T09:02:20.9773146-06:00
@DavidMGold No, i ended on "i guarantee hundreds of millions don't take their religion seriously or there would be a lot more havoc in the world." and i meant straw man, not stick man a few posts up.
DavidMGold says2014-11-09T10:59:54.1598101-06:00
Reece, you aren't going to accuse me of using a straw man argument when I can go directly to your remark, which says "you shouldn't have your expectations high for third world country's." I didn't present a different and weaker argument from the one you advanced. I referenced precisely what you argued. So get it right or be prepared to be held accountable or retract it. Yes, you did add another comment saying "i guarantee hundreds of millions don't take their religion seriously or there would be a lot more havoc in the world." So, allow me to address this point quickly. The obvious retort is that given our example, Pakistan, is home to a population of 172 million people alone but you want me to hold low "expectations" and then believe there's a mythical group of hundreds of millions that don't take it seriously? It further begs the question, knowing what Islam teaches, why would you casually associate yourself with it at all? As to the latter about havoc in the world, have you really been paying attention? I promise you no one on here knows about the Pakistani genocide in Bangladesh in 1971, fighting between Azerbaijan and Armenia, the Somalia Civil War, the Bosnian War, he Kosovo War, the conflict in Lebanon, the conflict over Kashmir, the genocide in Sudan, the Chechen war, our ongoing failure in Afghanistan, the onslaught by ISIS, and many other examples I can pull from.
Mister_Man says2014-11-09T11:12:43.6651405-06:00
David - Islam is a religion that has mostly nice, considerate people that follow it. However I agree with you that the religion itself is violent, and I will change my vote, as the questions is not "Does the murder of a Christian couple in Pakistan prove Muslims are all violent?" It asks if Islam is a religion of peace. It is not. Most of the people who follow it (loosely) are peaceful, though.
heyfur_1213 says2014-11-09T12:00:57.4493319-06:00
@David, Let me get this straight. You're saying one or many actions=Islam is violent=All Muslims are violent=I am Muslim, therefore I follow the religion of Islam and thus I am violent. Is that correct ? That is where you are wrong my friend. What is Islam ? The religion of Muslims. So if you say Islam is a religion of violence you are ultimately agreeing that all Muslims are violent. So to answer your question Mr.Gold, no Islam is not a religion of violence. Yes, it most certainly has violent aspects and yes there most certainly are violent Muslims, but for me to agree with you that Islam is a religion of violence would mean I as a follower of the religion, am violent. If you believe Islam is a religion of violence so be it. I guess I can't blame you or anyone else for believing that. However, I speak for myself personally as a Muslim, and I say that I am not a violent Muslim, nor am I a religious bigot, nor do I want to kidnap a couple and burn them do death. I don't remember wanting to ever behead anyone... That's just me, I know many people that feel the same way, unfortunately you don't. That's the problem, you probably don't know a single Muslim individual on a personal level, a "good, non-violent one" and you most likely don't want to. You base your thoughts and conclusions solely on the aggressive brutal actions caused by the barbaric bigots[which are 7% of Muslims worldwide, you should give the benefit of the doubt to the other 93%]. Whilst there are many bad in the religion, there are also many good. Trust me when I do say I'd like them wiped off the face of this Earth, ISIS/ISIL, Al Qaeda, etc. If a group of people did something terrible I'm not going to hate the whole religion, just those specific people. Unlike many people of other religions, I am not defending the violent parts of Islam, nor am I denying that there are aggressive verses in the Qur'an. Are you willing to admit that there are violent verses in the Bible ? Yes, I guess if I followed the Qur'an word for word I'd be a violent person, but I'd also be a great person, which is contradicting but this just comes to prove that every religious scripture has both good and scary verses to it. However, I do follow the Qur'an for it's goodness and I tend to ignore the more radical verses. Does that make me a bad Muslim ? Am I going to hell ? Idk but it definitely does not make me a bad human. My point is, it may be that you might think you speak for all other Muslims or Islam itself, but you certainly most definitely do not speak for me. Unfortunately how much ever I may try, I can not do anything to stop the tragedies that occur on a daily basis. However I can try to be the best Muslim I can be, and nothing you say nor any evidence you bring forth can prove otherwise.
heyfur_1213 says2014-11-09T12:04:22.4193937-06:00
@Reece, you are correct when you say that according to the Qur'an Jews and Christians are people of the book and recieved divine scripture. "And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him." (Al-Ankabut 29:46) " [But] they are not all alike: among the People of the Book there are upright people, who recite God's messages throughout the night, and prostrate themselves [before Him]. They believe in God and the Last Day, and enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong, and vie with one another in doing good works: and these are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, they shall never be denied the reward thereof: for, God has full knowledge of those who are conscious of Him. [But behold], as for those who are bent on denying the truth - neither their worldly possessions nor their children will in the least avail them against God.."(Aal-`Imran 3:113-116)
DavidMGold says2014-11-09T13:45:26.1856709-06:00
Heyfur_1213, short answer, no. I'm saying the act of 1,200 Muslims in Pakistan, urged on by their cleric speaking from a loudspeaker at the local mosque accusing two non-Muslims of blasphemy that led to a horrific beating and then murder of a man and his pregnant wife by burning them alive in a furnace, which is ghastly, violent, and cruel beyond any measure demonstrates the violence of Islam. You cannot deny the explicit sanction in Islam nor try to distance it from Islam simply because you as a self-identified Muslim living among non-Muslims realize how disturbing and appalling no matter how apathetic or indifferent you are to actual Islamic teachings along with your unwillingness to act on the violent exhortations of the Qu'ran and the traditions of Muhammad. My friend, from perspective you face a dilemma; you have to make a choice to either hold to Islam out of conformity to a group identity or you are going to have try reconciling how Islam can have violent aspects as well as violent followers but at the same time make a contradictory claim that it isn't violent. I'd be happy to discuss, debate, and delve into the Qu'ran, the Sunnah, Islamic history, and current events at length, which I believe makes your case impossible to claim it isn't violent. Admitting this does not make you a violent person, rather an honest person. Whether or not you are violent depends on your belief in Islam, adherence, and willingness to act on it. It begs the question, if you don't, why believe in any of it or what's the alternative? To discuss it at all doesn't make a person a religious bigot and let's be honest, I don't think you are personally a violent person nor do I have any ill will towards you. Quite the contrary, I think you're open-minded but conflicted and I don't blame you the least bit for it although as young Muslim woman, and me a kafir, even discussing Islam in a critical manner would be a danger to our lives in an Islamic country. Agree? I cannot adopt the view of see no evil, hear no evil with regard to Islam. I completely deny your accusation that I don't know any Muslim nor have I ever tried to but it is futile to defend yourself because any response is purely anecdotal. I happen to think your mistakenly take your Muslim upbringing, a religious one, and operated under the misguided belief that it constitutes a racial group. I can't go along with that 7% figure you use either. Assume I were to take you to any Islamic country in the world, do you think me and you could travel there and for the sake of argument do so as boyfriend/girlfriend or even husband and wife? I don't doubt you about wanting ISIS wiped out or al-Qaeda. I'll take you at your word. If a person or a group follows a teaching, however, how can you separate the teaching from the act itself? As for the Bible, it is not easy to take "turn the other cheek," "pray for those who persecute you," "if you live by the sword you die by the sword," or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as passages of violence or that abrogation of any kind exists. I cannot close my eyes or my mind (or heart) to what Islam teaches just because some Muslims are consciously decide to ignore large parts of the teaching. I'll end by saying you should have said best person you can be and you are free to reject all the evidence you wish and I can't join you in that endeavor no matter how much I sympathize with you on a personal level. I wish you well.
DavidMGold says2014-11-09T13:58:14.5209713-06:00
Heyfur_1213, I just wanted to add in all sincerity, despite whether or not you believe it, that you and a few others are always in my memory. I'm a brutally honest person that's very upfront and if I had any personal animosity toward you, believe me, you would have noticed it.
DavidMGold says2014-11-09T14:09:07.4601129-06:00
I would like to note that Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is someone that identifies himself as a practicing Muslim, but is willing to be honest and critical of political Islam, other Muslims, Terrorism, violent exhortations in the Qu'ran, and supports Israel. Unfortunately, American Islamic Forum for Democracy seems to be just a few professionals from Arizona and enjoys the support of few Muslims in the U.S. This is someone I could support, but I don't deny his group is really small and draws few supporters.
DavidMGold says2014-11-09T15:11:22.8940914-06:00
Heyfur_1213, you should mention to reece that "The Spider" 29:46 was abrogated by Surah 9:29 - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Citing the "Family of Imran" 3:113-116 doesn't help either; the lead up is an invitation to convert to Islam, it arrogantly lays claim to Abraham as a Muslim, attempts to delegitimize their religion, accuses them of misleading Muslims, defying allah, rejects the divinity of Christ, claims Abraham built the pagan shrine (Ka'ba), they reject allah, obstruct others, Muslims who listen to them are apostates, Muslims are the best/People of the Book are perverted transgressors, they are cowards, and then S. 3:112 they are under humiliation accusing them of murdering prophets, disobedience, and again calling them transgressors. S. 3:113 is actually talking about those who accept Islam. Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, an Egyptian, wrote a book referencing 3:113 writing of it "[The] Qur’an describes the Jews with their own particular degenerate characteristics, i.e. killing the prophets of Allah, corrupting His words by putting them in the wrong places, consuming the people’s wealth frivolously, refusal to distance themselves from the evil they do, and other ugly characteristics caused by their deep-rooted lasciviousness…only a minority of the Jews keep their word….[A]ll Jews are not the same. The good ones become Muslims, the bad ones do not." You could opt for the following - "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust." (Al-Ma'idah 5:51) - "Say: O People of the Scripture! Do ye blame us for aught else than that we believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed aforetime, and because most of you are evil-livers?" (Al-Ma'idah 5:59) - "He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse. O ye who believe! Lo! Many of the (Jewish) rabbis and the (Christian) monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar (men) from the way of Allah. They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom, On the day when it will (all) be heated in the fire of hell, and their foreheads and their flanks and their backs will be branded therewith (and it will be said unto them): Here is that which ye hoarded for yourselves. Now taste of what ye used to hoard." (At-Tawbah 9:33)
DavidMGold says2014-11-09T15:36:15.9653737-06:00
It gets worse - "In their [non-Muslims] hearts is a disease, and Allah increaseth their disease. A painful doom is theirs because they lie." (Al-Baqarah 2:10) - "O ye who believe! Spend of that wherewith We have provided you ere a day come when there will be no trafficking, nor friendship, nor intercession. The disbelievers, they are the wrong-doers." (Al-Baqarah 2:54) - You have a problem when the Qu'ran says non-Muslims are likes dogs (S. 7:176), likes cattle only worse (S. 25:44), perverse (S. 9:30), stupid (S. 8:65), vile beasts (S. 8:22), the worst beasts (S 8:55), and the worst creatures (S. 98:6).
reece says2014-11-09T18:21:44.3140767-06:00
@DavidMGold I wasn't even trying to quote you in the slightest when i said that.I hate long paragraphs *sigh*
DavidMGold says2014-11-09T18:23:52.4824265-06:00
Reece, I blame television *sigh*
reece says2014-11-09T18:25:23.5706712-06:00
@DavidMGold it's my ADD and dyslexia which gets the better of me.
heyfur_1213 says2014-11-10T16:06:10.9466806-06:00
As to your comment on Reece, I don’t think I should have because it was not necessary. I believe so because you are reading these verses incorrectly and taking them out of context my friend. They were meant for a specific group of people at a specific time and in a specific scenario. Sending verses onto Prophet Muhammad [PBUH] was God’s way of helping and telling him what to do, especially during hard times such as war or when people neglected the Prophet. Here are the deeper meanings to the verses I have provided to Reece--- 9:29- You say this verse abrogates [“The Spider” 29:46], but that is false. It’s ironic you mention this verse considering it is one of the most misinterpreted verses. This chapter is called Al-Taubah or otherwise known as The Repentance. It is important that you know this chapter was revealed to Prophet Muhammad [PBUH] at the time of the Battle of Hunain or Tabuk [can’t remember exactly which, perhaps both]. They were also amongst the last verses revealed to the Prophet. David, what is Jizya? Do you know? Let me enlighten you my dear friend. Jizya is “ A material proof of the non-Muslims’ acceptance of the subjection to the state and its laws”. It gives consent to Muslims that they may fight the non-Muslims who do not pay the Jizya, those and those only. To be fair, it was there choice from the start to accept “ the subjection to the state and its laws” by paying with “material proof” and then not adhering to that. Having said that, this verse does not encourage terrorism or innocent manslaughter, it only gives consent to fight those who refuse to pay jizya. Nowhere in the Qur’an does it permit Muslims to kill non-Muslims just because they simply disbelieve. The Qur’an orders Muslims to fight in battle against those who choose to oppress, aggress, terrorize ,and those who assault and kill innocent children, women, and men. It also gives out clear-cut order NOT to fight against those who are NOT fighting against you. The verses you have shown do not promote terrorism, rather you have misapprehended them. At one point in time these verses were orders from God to Muslims to be the first of those whom stand up unsympathetically against all forms of oppression and terrorism. “But if they incline to peace, incline to it as well, and place your trust in God, verily, He alone is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. But should they seek but to deceive thee by their show of peace- behold, God is enough for thee! It is He who has strengthened thee with His victory, and by giving thee believing followers”. [Al-Anfal/The Spoils of Water 8:61-62] Note that this verse was revealed at a time of war. 3:113-116- This Surah was addressed specifically to the Jews and Christians of that time. You are correct when you say it was an invitation to accept Islam, but not in the verses I have stated. These specific three verses, amongst others, were revealed after the Battle of Badr in which the Muslims were victorious. Their victory provoked the hostility of all those who opposed the Islamic Movement which caused objectionable apprehension to the Muslims. These verses, as well as other verses [3:102-120], prove that “The Muslims have been instructed to learn lessons from the History of the People of the Book and also to guard themselves against their machinations, and to prepare and train themselves to establish virtue and eradicate evil”. I will not go into detail with the other verses you have stated, for it will take too much time and effort which seems to be useless. Although I will say one thing in regards to them…The Qur’an was revealed in times of war and people are too occupied taking all verses out of context instead of actually elucidating those verses. Here is an example of that: “ They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be [all] alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly [their homes] in God’s way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever ye find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper” [Al-Nisa 4:89]. Referring to one verse only will cause misconceptions, that is why you can’t isolate surrounding verses that give a deeper meaning and a better understanding. Now, if you read the verse before this and the verse after this, you will realize that it was a time of war and these were commands from God. Someone like you reading a verse like such would probably assume it was meant for non-Muslims but rather it is referring to the hypocrites [traitor Muslims during war] . At such a time like that if there are traitors who have betrayed you in a time of war you have two options: to either kill them or get killed by the enemy[traitor]. These would be people who claimed to be Muslim … Little do you know that most of the verses you have stated talk about Pagan Arabs who used to fight and kill Muslims too long ago at times of war that caused grief and hardship. They also talk more about fighters than they do unbelievers. Anyone who fights Muslims is considered an unbeliever since, according to Islam, true believers do not kill innocents, however not every unbeliever is a fighter. Are you really going to use these verses to make a point today when they are clearly irrelevant to this period of time? I advise not. Would it make sense that I use a verse from the Bible that was meant for centuries ago in order to make an argument on an event that happened in today’s world? I reckon not. Muslims are forbidden to cause mischief on the Earth and do not use ISIS as an excuse because I can’t answer for them however I can tell you the Qur’an does not justify their actions of slaughtering innocent people whether they are believers or not. Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Somebody asked,” O Allah’s Apostle! Who is the best among the people?” Allah’s Apostle replied “ A believer who strives his utmost in Allah’s cause with his life and property.” They said,” Who is next?” He replied, “A believer who stays in one of the mountain paths worshiping Allah and leaving the people secure from his mischief” [Sahih Bukhari]. [Al-Ma'idah5:69] “Surely that they believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabians, who so believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness-their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow”. This verse ensures Jews and Christians of paradise in the hereafter if they believe and do good and that they needn’t have fear of the afterlife. So the Quran does not say non-Muslims go immediately to Hell, it actually states the opposite. In the Qur’an, Muslims and non-Muslims have the fair chance to Heaven or Hell, God does not favor Muslims over non-Muslims. In His eyes we are all his creation and to be treated equally. However, how we go about that is our decision and we have free will in that but we also must take full responsibility of our actions. For example, narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “A prostitute was forgiven by Allah, because, passing by a panting dog near a well and seeing that the dog was about to die of thirst, she took off her shoe, and tying it with her head-cover she drew out some water for it. So, Allah forgave her because of that” [Sahih Muslim]. This hadith comes to prove that no matter who you are or what you do, God looks at your actions and intentions and is most forgiving. “Verily, We [God] revealed the Torah, wherein there was guidance and light. On its strength did the Prophets, who had surrendered themselves unto God, deliver judgment unto those who followed the Jewish faith; and so did the [early] men of God and the Rabbis, because they were required to guard the Book of God, and they were witnesses thereof; therefore fear not the people and fear Me…” [Al-Ma’idah 5:44] God says that there is guidance and light in the Torah and in Islam it is part of our belief that we believe in Moses [PBUH] as a messenger. The Torah is referred to as ‘The Book of God’, which proves that according to the Qur’an Jews ARE in fact the People of the Book. “And we sent Isa[Jesus], the son of Mariam[Mary], to follow in the footsteps of those before him of the Taurat[Torah] and We gave him the Injeel[Gospel], which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of the Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard[against evil]”.[Al-Ma’idah 5:46] In this verse, God says that the Gospel was also guidance and light. Jesus [PBUH] is also a messenger in Islam. Muslims are not Muslims if we don’t believe in the four Holy Scriptures, which are the Torah, Zaboor [Psalm of David], Injeel [Gospel], and of course the Qur’an. So Reece can most certainly conclude that Jews and Christians are The People of the Book.
heyfur_1213 says2014-11-10T16:07:05.7025257-06:00
If you choose to see the faults in Islam than you should at least have the decency to see them in the Bible too, and not oversee them. The Bible has more than twice violent verses as does the Qur’an. Which means about 31100 verses comparing to about 6240 verses. I am not going to go into detail because I have not much knowledge of the deeper meanings of each verse and I choose not to put myself in an ignorant position, so I will leave it up to you whether you’d like to dig deeper into that or not. My intention in doing so is not to make Christianity look bad, but rather to prove that just as there are such cruel parts in the Qur’an, there are also similar and worse verses in the Bible, which you chose to deny. I’d like to know, why is it not relevant that Americans killed over 300,000 Muslims and in comparison Muslims killed over 10,000? I think it is very relevant and just because they are not around anymore to complain does not mean you should or could make less value of their deaths. I can go on about stating many inhumane violent acts done by Christians just as you are… for example: The Centennial Central Olympic Park Bombing, Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting, Planned Parenthood Bombing. Let us not forget about the crusades?! Are the lives of these people not significant as well? These people were living, breathing, human beings for God’s sake. No one has the right to take away someone else’s life and you really should not try to justify these actions by saying “ it was in the past “, “ it’s not happening in the present just as ISIS” or “ Christianity has not killed as much as Islam has”etc, because that’s utter bull. I have respect for all religions and I don’t like to call any out so trust me when I do say I have no interest in doing so. Anyway, I would not hate a whole religion based on the violent acts caused by idiotic extremists. I couldn’t care less if the violent verses in the Bible are applicable in today’s world or not, which will most likely be your argument. Most violent verses in the Qur’an were meant for a time in which people had no other choice but to resort to the words of God, to rely on Him and to obey His commands. Many or mind I say all terrorists are very ignorant of their own religion thus do not know that the verses they read and act upon are in fact taken out of context. They blindly believe that doing such savage acts will condone them from hell and that God will grant them paradise. So I say it is unfair that you base your thoughts or opinions of a whole entire religion on the actions of ignorant savages that do not have the capability to simply rationalize their own actions or even study their own religion. Many people of long ago as well as many people of today believed that such verses and commands were divinely inspired thus if a person believes that it is in fact God making the commands and pointing fingers, then they were going to do it and nothing would stop them. It is out of our control but it is unfortunate that many people today treat such verses as present-time imperatives. Terrorism, oppression, murder, killing of innocents are all forbidden in Islam. In chapter 6 [Al-An’am or The Cattle] verse number 151, God says “… and do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden [to be killed] except by [legal] right. This has He instructed you that you may use reason”. Which means murder is forbidden but in the case of execution promoted by the law for a crime is permitted. It is also forbidden to try and force Islam on other people, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error” [ Al Baqarah/The Cow, 2:256]. Islam can’t be forced on a person, they have to willingly choose to convert. The killing of innocent unarmed people is also forbidden, such as the beheading of innocent Americans and Brits done by ISIS/ISIL, or for example the American couple stated in your question. Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq who was the first Caliph, ordered his armies to follow these instructions, “I instruct you in ten matters: Do not kill women, children, the old, or the infirm [the ill]; do not cut down fruit-bearing trees; do not destroy any town..” [ ‘Kitab Al-Jihad, Malik Muwatta]. The Prophet Muhammad [PBUH] said: “A woman entered Hell for locking up a cat until it died of starvation. She did not feed it, give it to drink, or free it to let it feed elsewhere” [Sahih al-Bukhari& Sahih Muslim]. If we Muslims are forbidden to torture or kill an innocent cat/animal than what on Earth gives you the idea that the Qur’an permits us to oppress innocent human beings for absolutely no reason? That is utter and complete insanity! Also, violent events such as The Boston Marathon bombings, 9/11, etc, Prophet Muhammad [PBUH] did not condone such violent acts or suicide bombings. In Islam, sneak attacks are forbidden. The enemy must be given the equitable warning that war is forth-coming. In Islam, war is the last resort. Muslims must try to find every single peaceful way of solving an issue before having no other option and resorting to war. Sadly nothing that the Qur’an truly teaches is practiced, preached, or displayed on the media… so, like I said before, I can’t blame you.
heyfur_1213 says2014-11-10T16:14:21.9068690-06:00
Wth, my comments aren't submitting.
heyfur_1213 says2014-11-10T16:14:56.1456943-06:00
Oh hehe, never mind.
heyfur_1213 says2014-11-10T16:16:08.5599659-06:00
Wow..
heyfur_1213 says2014-11-10T16:16:21.6013987-06:00
This thing is annoying me.
heyfur_1213 says2014-11-10T17:11:58.7995050-06:00
You say, “I'd be happy to discuss, debate, and delve into the Qu'ran, the Sunnah, Islamic history, and current events at length, which I believe makes your case impossible to claim it isn't violent”, I’d be happy to do that too, if you weren’t so biased since I find it pointless going into long discussions at this point. You have no interest of hearing what I have to say, I hope all that I have written won’t go to such waste and that you benefited from it somehow at the least. “Admitting this does not make you a violent person, rather an honest person. Whether or not you are violent depends on your belief in Islam, adherence, and willingness to act on it. It begs the question, if you don't, why believe in any of it or what's the alternative?” Thank you for the compliment. To answer your question, I don’t think violence is the way to anything, I believe that Islam as a whole is a decent religion, even though it is hard for you to look past all that is shown on the media of the terrorist acts by those who claim to be killing in the name of Allah but in reality the only thing they possess is limitless ignorance, and so my answer to this poll question remains the same.
heyfur_1213 says2014-11-10T17:12:49.4099647-06:00
“To discuss it at all doesn't make a person a religious bigot and let's be honest, I don't think you are personally a violent person nor do I have any ill will towards you. Quite the contrary, I think you're open-minded but conflicted and I don't blame you the least bit for it although as young Muslim woman, and me a kafir, even discussing Islam in a critical manner would be a danger to our lives in an Islamic country. Agree? I cannot adopt the view of see no evil, hear no evil with regard to Islam”…Thank you again. Yes I do agree, just because I may not like something or I may disagree does not mean I get to deny that fact. That is up to you however you may want to view Islam, but I think it is unfortunate that you cannot adopt that view in regards to Islam… I am not interested in forcing you to believe anything, however I am only merely defending my beliefs and I see no wrong in that. I apologize for making such an accusation. As for you, I think you are being really insensitive towards all the other non-violent Muslims, you are judging all Muslims [approximately 1.57 billion according to google] from the actions of what may be 7% of them. I am not whatsoever justifying the tragedy that occurred in Pakistan, nor am I justifying any another terrorist act that may’ve occurred. I am ADMITTING, see the difference between you and I? Yes, no denying that, if me as a young Muslim woman and you as a kafir [dis/non-believer] would visit an Islamic country as husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend our lives would most definitely be at danger… there’s no reason in me denying the truth, it’s harsh and it’s unfair but it’s true. Sadly that is how things work in Islamic countries. What do you expect from third-world countries that have no way of resolving issues other than in an absurd way? Are we going to compare the Middle East to America? Because there is no point in doing so. If a person or a group follows a teaching that was meant to be adhered to hundreds of years ago, however, how can you compare that teaching to an act done in the present?
heyfur_1213 says2014-11-10T17:14:15.0528667-06:00
Oh don’t be so absurd, that’s cute if you think those are the only verses in the Bible. You seem to not have any trouble not sugar coating verses from the Qur’an so let us not sugar coat verses from the Bible[not the ones you’ve stated but other violent verses]. I already went over this but the point is that according to the Bible, God did sanction the violence contained in it. Full disclosure: I am not denying anything that might be quoted from the Qur’an, I am simply explaining their meaning and showing whilst Islam may be "violent,” it is also very similar to the Bible. In the Qur’an God Himself acknowledges that he is the creator of Evil and he even warns us from it. “ Say,” I see refuge in the Lord of daybreak, from the evil of that which he created, and from the evil of darkness when it settles, and from the evil of the blowers in knots, and from the evil of an envier when he envieth”. [Surat Al-Falaq; Daybreak 113:1-5 ]. The same thing can be said for the Bible. “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things” [Isaiah 45:7]. “ Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid ? Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it ?”[Amos 3:6]. “Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?” [Lamentations 3:38]. I was not taught to accept the good and deny the bad, in Islam we are taught to embrace the fact that God has created evil for He Himself indeed admits it.
heyfur_1213 says2014-11-10T17:36:44.1135890-06:00
That cruel act does not demonstrate the religion, It demonstrates the people who were affiliated with that act and how violent THEY are, not how violent ISLAM is. The acts of a group of people are not to be blamed on an entire religion. Religion is a concept, a belief, not a person, it does not do anything nor does it have the capability to do anything. It is us human beings who choose whether to make a good name to it or a bad name.
heyfur_1213 says2014-11-13T23:46:16.4149962-06:00
I am not convincing you anything as it already seems that you have made up your mind, but I dislike that you are only using verses blindly without knowing the history behind them.I am simply giving you information, so you do what you will with it. I apologize, it is just way too difficult for me to understand the way your mind processes things. You are your own person, think how you want and do what you want. No, I should not have said best person I can be, because I think I do a pretty banging job at that, but rather I said “best Muslim I can be” because we are indeed speaking on the topic of “Islam is Violence” and how much ever you may believe that, I will always try to be the best Muslim I can be mostly because I want to but also in order to prove you wrong, even if I am one person, even if it makes no difference to you, I will do it. I don’t reject any evidence, I am an open-minded person and I consider everything before making a blind decision. I simply said no evidence you bring forth can prove that I myself am a violent or bad Muslim. Don’t get me wrong, you are not at all a horrible being, you just have a terrible way of looking at everything, a biased point of view, and it is not me who you should feel discontent for but rather yourself. I respect you for keeping a consistent attitude/tone with me and I thank you for that. At least if two people disagree on something they should be able to talk it through peacefully and kindly. I do most certainly believe your genuine sincerity and I also very much admire and respect your brutal honesty. Let it be clear that I do not feel any animosity from you and I hope I have not given out that false impression. I must admit, I enjoy a challenge and you are the only one that has provided that for me on this site. I am finally done here. Good night and warm regards.
heyfur_1213 says2014-11-13T23:47:11.3292097-06:00
Please excuse the many comments. Breaking up my paragraphs were the only way the comments would submit. Bye bye now.
DavidMGold says2014-11-15T11:26:41.2845569-06:00
My friend, I reject your claim that I'm not reading the verses of the Qu'ran correctly or taking them out of context. You say a verse was meant for a specific people at a specific time, but you of all people should know the Qu'ran is supposed to be eternal and no where does it say it is limited to a specific time or place. It is proscriptive, not descriptive. You operate under an assumption that Muhammad (doesn't salah meant prayers, not peace) was a prophet, which can be disputed. Even Aisha sarcastically remarked to Muhammad that his Lord hastens in fulfilling his desires and you neglect to remember Muhammad took to robbing Meecan trade caravans, which involved killing and enslaving people. Again, I will repeat it, verses of the Qu'ran were abrogated (S. 2:106) and as such the later verse in S. 9:29 completely abrogated the earlier verse in S. 29:46. Simply contradicting me doesn't prove it doesn't it. Try mentioning the Battle of Hunayn was fought following Muhammad's violation of his treaty with Meeca and his surprise attack attack and conquest of Meeca to subdue those who did not accept Islam. This in turn led to the fall of Ta"if. The Battle of Tabouk was an aggressive expedition by the Muslims on the Byzantines and Ibn Kathir explains what you attempt to hide - "Allah, Most High, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says, "O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-Wise. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Surah 9:28-29) Therefore, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) decided to fight the Romans in order to call them to Islam." Do you want to ask me what Jizya is seriously when you take to providing a deceptive answer yourself? Once a land or country is conquered by Muslims, those who are left alive and don't accept Islam (only applies to People of the Book), as a sign of humiliation and submission Jizya is imposed on. Ibn Kathir excplained "Allah said, (until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam, (with willing submission), in defeat and subservience, (and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated" I have no tolerance for you, or anyone, that tries to disguise and whitewash it to provide a justification. You claim it is their choice? Well, your country has been invaded and conquered by the Muslims and even by your admission refusal to convert or pay this Jizya results in their death. Your thinking is getting really warped when you say this isn't terrorism or murder. S. 9:29 commands Muslims to fight those who are not Muslim and do not accept Islam, but despite the clear words that you continually leave out you chose to focus solely on Jizya and you didn't even get that right. It is insulting to me that you could pursue this so dishonestly. And considering we're discussing Al Taubah, it really makes me further question your honesty when you lie about the killing of non-Muslims being found in the Qu'ran. You say, "The Qur’an orders Muslims to fight in battle against those who choose to oppress, aggress, terrorize ,and those who assault and kill innocent children, women, and men." No, Muhammad from his arrival in Medina would began his military career by attacking innocent men, women, and children plundering trade caravans to enrich himself and his followers who had no other trade leading to battles with the Meecans and then he quickly disposed of the Jewish tribes of Medina. He would go on to terrorize and oppress those who did not accept Islam before taking his ambitions beyond Arabia to be carried on by his companions establishing a Caliphate that conquered, oppressed, and terrorized countless people in the world. Forgive me if I don't accept this gross distortion of history to put a smiley face on Islamic conquest. 9:29 does not say anything, nor does 9:5, about not fighting those who do not fight you. Given all this you revert to Al-Anfal, which I was surprised that you call it "The Spoils of Water." Chapter 8 is called Spoils of War. Al-Taubah abrogated 8:61 according to Ibn Abbas in 9:5. Also, being ordered to fight until there is no more Fitnah doesn't mean oppression, it means shirk, so Muslims are to fight until there is no disbelief. That's according to Ibn Kathir, not David. Note, chapter was revealed following thew Battle of Badr, but you neglect to mention Muhammad's role in making the war. I will not tolerate you falsely trying to absolve Muhammad and the Muslims from their repeated attacks on Meecan trade caravans that directly led to the Battle of Badr. You cannot give the victim status. You aren't going to go into verses because it won't help your case other than repeating the charge of context but then you yourself deny the context. With verse 4:89 you attempt to whitewash the killing of apostates. "All four imams (the founders of the four schools of Islamic law) — may Allah have mercy upon them — agree that the apostate whose fall from Islam is beyond doubt — may Allah forbid it — must be killed, and his blood must be spilled without reservation. The hypocrite and heretic (zindiq) who poses as a Muslim but has secretly remained an unbeliever must also be killed." It is a universal command. You make a ridiculous attempt to apologize on behalf of it by acting as though it is war and these are deserters or traitors, but it doesn't say kill those who are traitors and deserters. It is worth mentioning Muhammad waged dozens of battles in 10 years bringing about the constant warfare as well as the fact Islam is not only religious but political and military as well. At any rate, Muhammad said of the person that leaves Islam, kill him. To answer your question, you brought up 4:89 and I would most certainly bring it up to make it a point today just as many Muslims do with the Qu'ran. Your self-serving definition of a Muslims, no Muslims kills a innocent people, although innocent people according to the Qu'ran seems to only be Muslims (but not those guilty of apostasy or hypocrisy). Can you use a verse from the Bible? Sure, show me a biblical verse as it corresponds to a teaching that motivates an action and I will engage your point. As for saying Muslims cannot cause mischief, I challenge you to present a verse or hadith to make your case otherwise ISIS is not all that different from the Islamic Caliphate that conquered, slaughtered, and oppressed before it. I can name a hell of a lot more groups than just ISIS by the way. I was utterly amazed you cite a Hadith about Jihad to make a point about Muslims cannot cause mischief therefore ISIS is wrong. What is mischief since you like to talk about people taking something out of context? Ibn Kathir explains "("Do not make mischief on the earth), that is disbelief and acts of disobedience." So basically mischief is not following Islam - "Their mischief is disobeying Allah, because whoever disobeys Allah on the earth, or commands that Allah be disobeyed, he has committed mischief on the earth." I was particularly amazed when you raised 5:69 as proof Christians and Jews will go to paradise! Far from being ecumenical generosity, this is within the CONTEXT that Moses and all the prophets, which according to Islam would include Jesus, were Muslims and that the scriptures of Jews and Christians are corrupt. 5:72 made it clear that Christians were "associating partners with allah" by "Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Marium” and they are to go to hell. You are being deceptive. In fact, the Hadith says every Muslim will be given a Christian or Jew who ill be thrown into hell fire thus presumably sparing them the fate - “Abu Musa' reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire. S. 48:13 makes it explicitly clear that "And whoever does not believe in Allah and His Messenger, then surely We have prepared burning fire for the unbelievers." You choose to relate a silly hadith about a prostitute and a dog to make a point about forgiveness. To illustrate the absurdity of it I would refer you to the Hadith where supposedly "Gabriel" failed to meet Muhammad so it occurred to him to turn out a puppy and sprinkle water in it's place. "Gabriel" tells Muhammad “but we do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture." The next morning Muhammad "commanded the dogs to be killed." Muhammad is also recorded in the Hadith as having said "The black dog is a devil.” I suppose you have no opinion on the practice of taking women as “spoils of war” to be used for sexual gratification but perhaps you can explain how warfare makes this acceptable. Finally, you end by by referencing 5:44 & 5:46 to claim Reece can relax. You neglect to mention 5:14, which says the divisions among Christians demonstrates the falsity of their religion begging the question since as soon as Muhammad died there was a huge, bloody division between the Shia and Sunni that continues to this day. S. 5:33 gruesomely proscribes “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." So here is a warning not to oppose Muhammad lest you be killed, crucified, lose body parts, or be exiled. S. 5:36 clearly says those who disbelieve are destined for hell fire. S. 5:38 proscribes cutting off the body parts of any male or female for theft, which the Hadith assure us is even applicable for stealing a coin or a piece of bread. Again I point out S. 5:51 that Muslims are not to take Jew or Christians for friends, which is a more relevant point. Islam would go on to conquer and destroy a great part of the classical Christian world and killing or persecuting Christians today, but you would have him believe there's no connection to Islam.
DavidMGold says2014-11-15T18:09:08.3073875-06:00
As to the Bible containing more violence than the Qu'ran, noting 31,100 verses in the Bible and 6,240 in the Qu'ran although you fail to make it clear this is the total number of verses. In terms of words, the Bible is 10 times larger than the Qu'ran. You claimed the Bible is twice as violent, but denying context (descriptive vs. Proscriptive) as a percentage the Qu'ran is twice as violent. Unlike the atheists that compiled this examination, you have a much larger problem given that this is supposedly allah at work and Moses was a Muslim. I would challenge you to put forth verses rather than claiming I deny verses (even though I never have). Why 300,000 Muslims deaths are not relevant is specifically due to the fact that missmedic's figures are erroneous and secondly, a war with Muslims, as in any other war, doesn't necessitate that we perish at the rate of our enemies. To put it more sternly, those would-be shahids that seek martyrdom (despite their belief in a supernatural brothel in Jannah) should be killed to the last one. I attach absolutely no value to their deaths. You list several acts (I have thousands upon thousands acts of violence perpetrated by Muslims) and I will ofer a quick rebuttal. The Centennial Olympic Park was carried out by Eric Robert Rudolph who gave explicit political reasoning, not religious, for the bomb. He never referenced Christ as a motivating factor, Church law, or sermons at church as justification for his action. The same is true of the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting, which again you find the shooter gave his political reasoning (hatred of Democrats and liberals) not pointing to what Christ said or did. I fail to see how you can continually fail to see a very clear distiniction other than intentionally misleading people. Planned Parenthood Bombing doesn't ring a bell. Now, the problem is I can reference from thousands of instances of violence specifically motivated by Islamic teaching so you have a molehill and I have a mountain. We recently had a beheading and an attempted beheading in Moore, OK who was advocating Islamic terrorism and teaching as evidenced by his social media page. The shooting at Fort Hood gunned down 13 unarmed American soldiers praising allah throughout the shooting. I could point out honor killings such as one in Glendale, Arizona where Faleh Almaleki ran over his daughter for becoming "too westernized." How about the bombing in Bagdad (11-1-14) killig 24 people by a shahid suicide bomber, a bombing killing 13 people in Aghanistan (11-1-14) by yet another shahid, another 10 killed by a bomb planted by Islamists in Nigeria (10-31-14), ISIS rounded up 150 Iraqi men from their village executing all of them in Ramadi on (10-31-14), or the many acts of daily violence around the world just in 2014. I'm have no tolerance for people that struggle to point to a relatively small number, falsely assign motivation that doesn't exist, and then conflate this with Islamic terrorism and violence throughout the world on an almost daily basis. You don't have an argument. And then you have the audacity to ask about the Crusades? Are you seriously going to get into another losing debate? Do I need to remind you of the Islamic conquests of a territory stretching from India to Spain? Islam destroyed the classical Christian World in Syria, Egypt, and North Africa. It took 700 years to repel Muslim invaders from Spain. That's not mentioning the attacks on southern Europe conquering, for example Sicily, and raiding as far north in Italy as Rome. It doesn't include the raiding of coastal areas and shipping carrying of people into the Islamic slave trade. So after 400 years of Islamic conquest and aggression, at te pleading of the Byzantines for aid, Europe launched the first Crusade to retake Jerusalem. Should one forgfet Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah destroying 30,000 Churches? So you can mention it but without any reference to pst four hundred years of Islamic conuest, aggression and imperialism that swept away two-thirds of the Christian World? So are these lives relevant to a debate or do we need to pander to ridiculous narratives of Muslim victimhood that are not historical? And as for the utter bull, which you seem to shovel unite a bit of in your remarks, Islam has killed peraps over 200 million people. As for your supposed respect of other religions, Islam has absolutely no respect for anything else nor has it ever had. I will not whitewash Islam or Islamic history to suit the feelings of people that seem uite willing to lie about their own history in order to propogate their belief in it. My argument is simply I can show Islam does mandate violent warfare and you find no such doctrine in the Christian scripture other than misuse of descriptive events in the Old Testament that atheists make a point of time and again. The u'ran is supposed to be binding and eternal, it's mandates are universal except where abrogated, and therein lies the key distinction. Also, Muhammad serves as the perfect example of human conduct for Muslims and we know his record. As for Islamic Jihadists being ignorant of their religion, or the Islamic World, I find to be silly. These aren't a "few extremists," but entire countries. Wen 80% of young Turks living in the Netherlands see no problem with waging Jihad against unbelievers, there's a huge number. The only reason we call them extremists is in comparison to Western values and you'd be lynched in a Muslim society for saying this sort of stuff. Again, why should I disassociate the acts from the teachings of the religion? You offer me absolutely no reason. Why would I suppose someone that admittedly doesn't follow their Islamic faith very strictly knows more about it than the people actually living under Sharia? Terrorism, oppression, killing, are not forbidden in Islam. The actions of the prophet of Islam, is companions, the Qu'ran and Sunnah, and Islamic history are totally contrary to your claim. Wishful thinking doesn't make it go away. You reference 6:151 to say it prohibits murder, but that applies to Muslims as matter of individual crime and Muammad provided the three exceptions in cases of Qisas (revenge), adultery, and apostasy. And no, it says that which is not forbidden, and it is not forbidden to kill unbelievers. You're trying to apply a meaning that distorts the verse. As for the often cited "No compulsion in religion" found in S. 2:256, in Tafsir Ibn Kathir we find "Whoever Allah misguides blinds his heart and has set a seal on his hearing and a covering on his eyes cannot embrace Islam by force...Hence Allah revealed this verse. But, this verse is abrogated by the verse of "fighting...Therefore, all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizya they should be fought till they are killed. This is the meaning of compulsion. In the Sahih, the Prophet said: "Allah wonders at those people who will enter Paradise in chains", meaning prisoners brought in chains to the Islamic state, then they embrace Islam sincerely and become righteous, and are entered among the people of Paradise." The Tafsir Al-Qurtubi says " It is said that it is abrogated because the Prophet forced the Arabs to adopt the din of Islam and fought them and was only pleased with Islam for them. Sulayman ibn Musa took the view, saying, "It is abrogated by ‘O Prophet! Do jihad against the unbelievers and the hypocrites.’ (9:73)" That is related from Ibn Mas‘ud and many commentators. The other view expressed in it as well is " It is not abrogated and was sent down about the people of the Book in particular and means that they are not forced to adopt Islam when they pay jizya. Those who are forced are the idolaters." Neither are endorsing your view that is way out of context, which you like to accuse others of doing. You use Juan Cole's citation about Abu Bakr's ten instructions from Malik’s Muwatta, but if I remember right Muslim sources claim 16 different versions and it isn't part of the Sahih (authentic) collection. Imam Shaffi (founder of the Shaffi school of thought) reportedly did not consider the tradition, about the 10 rules of Abu Bakr as authentic. Abu Yusuf also countered the tradition about the instructions of Abu Bakr with hadith which claimed Abu Bakr ordered his commanders to lay waste to every village where he did not hear the call to prayer. Now, this was supposed to be an instruction shortly before the Expedition of Usama bin Zayd. Muhammad ordered it saying "Attack the people of Ubna early in the morning, and destroy them by fire!" Muhammad died as Usama set out on the expedition and Abu Bakr urged him to carry on the campaign. Now, the best reason to believe these 10 rules are purely fiction is that the Muslim army undeniably slaughtered the people destroying and burning while carrying off as many captives as they could. Other reasons to discount it? Killing women and children? Just turn to Sahih Hadith - "The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.E. Women and children) are from them (i.E. Pagans)." Additionally, women and children are viewed as Spoils of War, they are a commodity, women become the sexual property of the Muslim men or are sold along with the children into slavery. Of course this gets left out in your implication of humanitarian ethics when a more practical but sinister motive is apparent. The same could be said of trees, but again you find that Muhammad did burn and cut down fruit growing trees of the Banu Nadir tribe as recorded in the authentic hadith collection. You next cite a hadith about a woman who starved a cat asking why would we believe the Qu'ran would esteem human beings less. Great point! Perhaps Islam is just an ideology born of Arabs as opposed to divinely inspired revelation. It ordered the killings of dogs, said black dogs are devils in human form, said crows should be killed, and geckos. There was a snake he said should be killed saying it causes because it causes blindness and abortion. So instead of you drawing the wrong conclusion that this can't be right therefore Islam doesn't teach what it clearly teaches perhaps you could possibly consider the conclusion that it is utterly insane. As for there being no such thing as "sneak attacks," you must be drawing from Juan Cole because this is pure fiction. What do you call Muhammad's attack on Khaybar? It was a surprise attack while they were coming out to work and tend their orchards. What warning was given about his attack on Meeca, which he kept secret from even his closet friends? So we readily find examples of it being Sunna to attack by surprise and another feeble argument falls apart. As for war being a last resort in Islam, quit blaming the media that largely ignore the vast majority of events any way always offering like Obama the "religion of peace" mantra when the Muslims that carry them out are to blame. We don't need to make excuses for Islam. Sadly, nothing you have offered me indicates anything about Muslims having to seek peace nor do I find this mythical Islam that isn't being practiced and preached.
DavidMGold says2014-11-15T18:29:09.5075873-06:00
And forgive me, but I don't believe you are serious about wanting to discuss Islam with me, because you say it is "pointless" and I'm biased. We're doing it now. The problem you have is that I'm not inclined the least bit to Islam and I'm highly critical of it. If discussing it with you requires me to be a Muslim or at least needlessly praising it, then on those terms it is pointless. If I didn't have any interest, I wouldn't be in a long discussion or expend this much time on the topic! I happen to disagree with you and I labor to explain the reason why I disagree with you. For example, you continue this fallacious attack on the messenger, which I personally find a bit ridiculous given the media's ringing endorsement of myths about Islam being a peaceful religion by saying I view Islamic terrorism as the reason for opposing Islam. Quite the opposite. I view the problem from the source, Islam, the prophet of Islam, his companions, etc. and the terrorism is a manifestation of acting on those teachings and traditions. I'd be more than happy to show you even more horrific accounts from history that dwarf the terrorism of today that is so pervasive in the world. Your answer to to the poll question demonstrates an unwillingness to adopt a point of view based clear context and reality, but out of your own bias and need to defend Islam out of your own identity as opposed to sustained beliefs, you will deny what is plain for anyone to see. The impasse, the obstacle to this moving forward, is your unwillingness to critically assess Islam. I'd suggest it is the apologist for Islam that removes context. You have suggested previously that to ask this poll question, and imply by your attack on the media, that to even mention this story is an attack on Islam and by extensions Muslims. To the extent you can call this an attack on Muslims is to the extent you are willing to place Islam and Islamic teaching beyond criticism. At any rate, I don't bear you any ill will or accuse you of being a stealth jihadist. If I'm wrong, then show me where I'm wrong. That's the purpose of debate.
DavidMGold says2014-11-15T19:05:36.2780853-06:00
You responded to my point about how you being a young Muslim woman, and me being a kafir, we couldn't hold this discussion in an Islamic country by saying you cannot deny that fact, but then how in the world can you say my view is regrettable about Islam. How can you deny the connection with no reason. Look, I understand you identify as a Muslim because your parents and extended family are Muslims, but that doesn't negate what we see in Islam. Thank you, but when people tell me they aren't trying to force their beliefs on me is of little consequence because I don't recognize the ability of anyone to do it. You can try to persuade me, but forcing me is out of the question and if ever presented with die,l convert, or pay Jizya...I'm going to be fighting with all I have although I'm not trying to give the impression that I have any fear of that. There's nothing wrong with a defense of one's belief but at some point if your arguments and reasons are invalidated you have to be open to considering that you may be wrong. Personally, I don't see it as being insensitive of 1.5 billion Muslims because of the poll or the incident in Pakistan. At some point Muslims are going to have to quit wailing endlessly about being victims when so often we find them doing the victimizing. You tell me what Al-Ma'ida lays out as punishment for blasphemy (or mischief) or what Muhammad ordered for Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, asking his followers "who is ready to kill Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf who has really hurt Allah and His Apostle" permitting them to lie and so they lured him out at night and stabbed him to death. If you are going to say that criticism of Islam, no matter how true is insensitive, then his is pointless and Islam is hopelessly unable to ever reform. According to The Fiqh Concerning Those Who Insult The Messenger of Allah - "[In Islamic Fiqh] there are absolutely no opinions, no variants, no exceptions...Muhammad ibn Sahnun said that even if a man claims that it is part of his religion to insult the Messenger, and so in his religion it is lawful, that makes no difference to us. If he openly insults our Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, then our religion makes it lawful to kill him. This surely is the inescapable centre of the current affair. The arrogant kuffar have to learn that the world contains a two-billion community who have a different set of Laws from theirs, and who can never be detached from that Law." Well, excuse me people [Muslims] but I'm not going to overlook your Islamic Jurisprudence that says you may kill me for insulting Muhammad. So, no, you admit it happened because you can't deny that but the problem you DENY the connection to Islam as if it has nothing to do with it. The overwhelming majority of those 186 million people are not the least bit bothered by it or deny it...They're in fact probably proud and feel justified in it. You admit we couldn't travel as a married couple or as two people in an intimate relationship, but you again miss the point...Islamic teaching and tradition...Not the third world status being behind it. There are plenty of third world countries we could in fact visit. Try telling Muslims that this only applies centuries ago, not me. I know you are probably going to hate me for saying these things, but you fundamentally miss my objective in reaching you intellectually and hopefully on a basic moral level. I care enough about you to take the time to discuss these things at considerable length. I work a great deal during the weak and it would be far easier to drop an insult and move on. I can't not know these things I do know.
DavidMGold says2014-11-15T19:57:04.8919533-06:00
I'm not being absurd nor did I say that those were the only verses in the Bible, but those are four verses directly attributed to Christ and from them wanton violence and terrorism cannot be derived from them. With that said, don't accuse me sugar coating something when you haven't produced any contrary verses or teachings. For example, I don't need to mention descriptive events such as Joshua's campaign against the Canaanites, because it is not intended to be misconstrued as universal or binding command. Please, by all means, provide me the biblical equal for Jews to fight all gentiles until they convert to Judaism or pay protection money feeling themselves subdued or Christians fighting all non-Christians until they convert or feel themselves subdued. I'll be happy to address what you feel to be a violent verse. I would point out that the Tanakh or the Bible say the opposite, that God is not the author of evil, but allah of the Qu'ran does and worse, the arabic makara means deceiver. In fact, the Qu'ran has a dialogue between allah and Iblis (satan) where he tells allah that because allah misled him, he will mislead mankind. You don't seem to understand what is being said in Isaiah 45:7 because James 1:13 states "Let no one say when he is tempted. 'I am being tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone" and "Thou art not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; no evil dwells with Thee (Psalm 5:4). It refers to natural occurrences like a storm not moral evil or sin. Contrast this with allah who leads people astray (S. 32:13), as evidenced elsewhere (S. 18:57), and all sorts of barriers to keep unbelievers from being believers (S. 36:7-10). Accordingly, allah causes people to sin (S. 16:93). I don't see how Muslims reconcile this problem. Amos 3:6 makes it clear "Shall there be evil in a city" and the affliction of judgment for sin, which is not to say God is evil or the author of it. The same goes for Lamentations 3:38. In these instances it is the translation of the Hebrew, ra'ah, when calamity would be a better way to translate it. This isn't, again, to suggest a moral or sinful evil. The Islamic view is contrary to the Judeo-Christian teaching. I don't feel comforted by you embracing that allah is evil. Despite your suggestion, there's no parallel here.
DavidMGold says2014-11-15T20:04:32.8246105-06:00
I'm not going to let you escape the reality that Islam and the teachings and traditions, especially in light of what Muhammad himself did, made the cruel act in Pakistan an unfortunate reality. You can't separate the people from the teaching that led to the act. It may be an ugly truth, but you have to accept this is part of Islam no matter how much you personally dislike it. Religion is a belief, but Islam goes beyond religion into politics and war making it an ideology as well. I reject your suggestion that ideas do not have consequences nor can they be a cause for action. A person can do good or bad, but from within Islam the act is seen as a good thing or a legitimate thing given the accusation of blasphemy (burning a Qu'ran).
DavidMGold says2014-11-15T20:29:28.5958337-06:00
You are not convincing me because I have made my mind up based on the evidence and reason I have to examine it, but I am open to being proven wrong and changing my mind if it is such and I'm persuaded by evidence although in this case I don't find any reason to doubt my argument or my case. I know the history of the verses, thank you very much, and it doesn't alter the argument in your favor. You are fond of using the typical cherry picked verses (no compulsion in religion, etc.) that have been abrogated and replaced by later Medinan or later verses. I have disputed your claims, your take on the verses I offer, and the verses you offer. I could easily say the same about me giving you information and you choosing to do what you will with it. Sadly, I would hope you wouldn't be the best Muslim given my understanding of it, but I know you mean in light of Western values and as such ignore vast parts of the Qu'ran or the Sunnah that conflict with those values. If your open-minded, as you say, then it should be apparent and I would have no reason to disagree. I don't claim you personally are violent, or urge it, but that doesn't mean Islam isn't violent. Let's not get confused here, but to me being a bad Muslim would be rejecting Jihad, demeaning the women, etc. so I would have to say being a bad Muslim would be a good thing in that case. I completely reject your view that I have a horrible way at looking at things, which seems to be clearly with open eyes but the added charge of bias will inevitably come back to haunt you. I agree, for once, that we should do this in a civil manner and I'm not going to unduly hurl around insults although you seem to think opposition to Islam is insulting to Muslims. I have no animosity toward you, in fact despite your continued opposition I see hope in you, and I don't think you are a bad person. I will continue to be persuaded that adherence to Islam or being under Sharia would forbid us from this discussion, would definitely endanger by life, and would make it impossible for us to ever friends which is why I'm fortunate were not under those restrictions and free to pursue it. I enjoy a challenge as well and it usually benefits us. With that I conclude and good night to you.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.