Spreading Islam by the Sword

[Voidwar]

Out of interest, can you point to any specific examples of Islamic terrorists using the verses which you have quoted as justification for their acts?

The beheadings ( of Daniel Pearl and others ) are directly out of the Quran, a passage which specifically instructs jihadis to "strike at their necks".

 

[Iriemon]

No, It is not. This topic is about Islam, specifically, and your attempts to sidetrack it and derail it with equivocations about some other religion are bogus and off topic. If you can't stay on topic, then stay off the thread. If you need to discuss the horrors of Chrisitianity, do it on some other thread. Why don't we see that Irie ? Where are the other threads you have started about how dangerous Christianity is ?? I'll TELL you why we dont see them. Because your attempts to derail this topic with crap about Chrisitainity are just that, and reflect no real worry about chrisitianity, but rather an attempt to drag the topic away from Islam and the violence of its message and followers. You are disingenuous and dishonest to assert this crap you don't believe just to derail this topic about Islam, and the complete lack of independant postings on your part, decrying the dangers of Christianity independent of apology making in a thread about Islam, stands as proof of your deception.

Where are the other threads you started about the danger of Chrisitianity ? Or are you just throwing out the red herring ? Find me the real thread you started about the dangers of Christiainty or admit that you have no such fear, and merely hand folks your bogus equivocations to derail topics about Islam.

This thread cites the text of the Quoran for the proposition that their holy text contains phrases of violence as explanation for why some Muslims are acting with violence.

Therefore, the issue of the methodology of the interpretation and adherence to religious text is directly raised as an issue in the OP.

It is therefore totally relevant to contrast how other religions with violent text interpret and adhere to their text in a discussion of the significance of the violent text in the Quoran.

If you disagree, sorry.

I haven't posted anything about Christianity in this thread in any case, except in response to direct questions. My first post here cited a verse in the Quoran, and only mentioned in context that Christians living in Muslim nations for centuries have not be slain, which contracts the contention in the OP that the Quoran compels Muslims to slay non-Muslims.

If the Quoran really says that, there are a lot of Muslims over the centuries that apparently missed the message.

And what the hell are you babbling about starting threads about the dangers of Christianity? I don't believe I've started any threads about the dangers of any religion.

 

[Voidwar]

Therefore, the issue of the methodology of the interpretation and adherence to religious text is directly raised as an issue in the OP.

It might, almost be relevant, if you were genuine. But you are not. You are not trying to shed light on anything, you are trying to confuse and stymie an analysis of one religion, by a history lesson regarding another.

Your inability to discuss Islam without apologistic equivocation is evidence of your intellectual dishonesty. You simply CAN'T stay on topic about Islam, and if I were you, that intellectual failing would embarass me no end.

And what the hell are you babbling about starting threads about the dangers of Christianity? I don't believe I've started any threads about the dangers of any religion.

The fact that you don't start them is compelling evidence that your "counter-assertions" are only opportunistic red herrings in response to threads about Islam. If you had genuine concerns about Chrisitianity you would have a history of posting about it. You do not have that history because your use of the "danger of chrisitianity" is a falsehood that you only get out in threads about Islam. I see right through your bull. If your red herring actually held any weight with you, you would have been posting about it independantly of threads on Islam.

If your comprehension skills are so poor that the first paragraph, and this further explanation don't make perfect sense to you, then it is YOUR lack of comprehension. I also saw right through your attempt to act like you don't understand it. You understood it, and it was plainly stated. Stop bringing up Chrisitainity in Islamic threads. The fact that you don't bring it up anywhere else is proof that you are being disingenuous when you do.

 

[Iriemon]

It might, almost be relevant, if you were genuine. But you are not. You are not trying to shed light on anything, you are trying to confuse and stymie an analysis of one religion, by a history lesson regarding another.

Your inability to discuss Islam without apologistic equivocation is evidence of your intellectual dishonesty. You simply CAN'T stay on topic about Islam, and if I were you, that intellectual failing would embarass me no end.

Yes, I disagree the cited text of the Quoran compels Muslims to slay Christians and Jews. For reasons I stated in this thread.

If you disagree, sorry, you can state your own opinions.

If my statement in your eyes is off topic or makes me not genuine or apologistic toward Islam, sorry. I disagree. Others can decide for themselves.

But if you want to actually address something on topic, feel free to explain how the Quoran commands killing non-Muslims yet Muslims allowed non-Muslims to live in their nations for millenia.

The fact that you don't start them is compelling evidence that your "counter-assertions" are only opportunistic red herrings in response to threads about Islam. If you had genuine concerns about Chrisitianity you would have a history of posting about it. You do not have that history because your use of the "danger of chrisitianity" is a falsehood that you only get out in threads about Islam. I see right through your bull. If your red herring actually held any weight with you, you would have been posting about it independantly of threads on Islam.

What on earth are you talking about? Where did I ever say I had concerns about Christianity? Why should I have?

If your comprehension skills are so poor that the first paragraph, and this further explanation don't make perfect sense to you, then it is YOUR lack of comprehension. I also saw right through your attempt to act like you don't understand it. You understood it, and it was plainly stated. Stop bringing up Chrisitainity in Islamic threads. The fact that you don't bring it up anywhere else is proof that you are being disingenuous when you do.

First of all, I didn't bring up Christianity in this thread. Korimyr did, or more accurate, it was a point in the OP. I've just argued that for the issue of how religious text is applied it is relevant to look at how religious text is applied.

Second of all, in a thread discussing how religious text is to be interpreted or applied, how it is interpreted or applied by others for their religion is completely relevent to the topic. You're flat out wrong.

Third, I'll do what ever the hell I want.

 

[Voidwar]

What on earth are you talking about? Where did I ever say I had concerns about Christianity? Why should I have?

If you don't understand the terms disingenuous, red herring, and opportunistic, its YOUR problem pal. Improve your own comprehension levels rather than whine to me for remedial reading help. Your feigned ignorance is no more appealing than your red herrings.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

The Sword verses of the Qu'ran

Qur'an 9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

I have to leave soon, so I'm only going to address the first one for now. This statement was in reference to specific pagan tribes who broke an agreement with Muhammad. It isn't carte blanche to kill all infidels, it is an instruction to take up arms against specific pagan (I've also seen it translated as idolators, and, as you posted, disbelievers) tribes who violated agreements and attack Muslims first. The targets were pagans, and Muhammad identified them as such, but they weren't being targeted because they were pagans, it was because of specific grievances between the Muslims and those peoples' tribes. In context it really isn't a very inflammatory line at all. He's basically saying "go kill the people we are at war with"

And if you want to talk about the bible go make your own thread. This one is about the Qur'an, it's not the "whose religion is more ****ed up?" thread.

 

[Iriemon]

If you don't understand the terms disingenuous, red herring, and opportunistic, its YOUR problem pal. Improve your own comprehension levels rather than whine to me for remedial reading help. Your feigned ignorance is no more appealing than your red herrings.

zzzzzzzzzz

 

[Slainte]

The beheadings ( of Daniel Pearl and others ) are directly out of the Quran, a passage which specifically instructs jihadis to "strike at their necks".

The demands made in the video of the murder of Daniel Pearl were political, not religious. They contained no reference to the verses quoted in this thread.

The English transcript of the text reads [sic]:

NATIONAL MOVEMENT FOR THE RESTORATION OF PAKISTAN SOVEREIGNTY (NMRPS)
We still demand the following:
The immediate release of U.S. held prisoners in Guantinamo Bay, Cuba.
The return of Pakistani prisoners to Pakistan.
The immediate end of U.S. presence in Pakistan.
The delivery of F-16 planes that pakistan had paid for and never recieved.
We asure Americans that they shall never be safe on the Muslim Land of Pakistan.
And if our demands are not met this scene shall be repeated again and again...

Daniel Pearl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Voidwar]

The demands made in the video of the murder of Daniel Pearl were political, not religious. They contained no reference to the verses quoted in this thread.

I didn't say they did. The ACT, of sawing at his neck, was in compliance with, and an "homage" to a specific Quranic reference which translates "strike at their necks". It is why he was beheaded instead of drowned or shot. Whether they put it in their pamphlet or not changes zilch. The "strike at the neck" is direct from the Quran and that is why these prisoners are beheaded as opposed to any other method of execution.

 

[Voidwar]

zzzzzzzzzz

You spell "I concede" with too many "z"s.

 

[Iriemon]

You spell "I concede" with too many "z"s.

What a surprise you'd claim so. But sorry, I've lost interest engaging your repetitive ranting.

 

[Voidwar]

What a surprise you'd claim so. But sorry, I've lost interest engaging your repetitive ranting.

Well, if your bullcrap line about not understanding it doesn't work, why not try an inaccurate characterization aimed at marginalization of the issue :roll:

You are so transparent it is pitiful.

Your lack of comprehension created the need for the repetition in the first place.

Buh Bye now, Red herring boy.

 

[Iriemon]

Well, if your bullcrap line about not understanding it doesn't work, why not try an inaccurate characterization aimed at marginalization of the issue :roll:

You are so transparent it is pitiful.

Your lack of comprehension created the need for the repetition in the first place.

Buh Bye now, Red herring boy.

You appear to think it highly impressive to entertain us with your witty repartee; but are you just going to limit your entire appearance in this thread to ranting about me, or are you going to actually add something constructive to the issue?

Like how the Quoran can be interpreted to command slaying of non-Muslims when Christians and Jews lived in Muslims nations for years?

 

[Voidwar]

are you going to actually add something constructive to the issue?

Like how the Quoran can be interpreted to command slaying of non-Muslims when Christians and Jews lived in Muslims nations for years?

Dhimmis, paying the Jizzya.

Second Class Citizens in that theocracy and everyone knows it.

 

[Iriemon]

Dhimmis, paying the Jizzya.

Second Class Citizens in that theocracy and everyone knows it.

And which Muslim nations require Jizya now?

 

[SgtRock]

Out of interest, can you point to any specific examples of Islamic terrorists using the verses which you have quoted as justification for their acts?

The vast majority of the time these Islamic groups cite political injustices and the need to defend their religion from perceived aggression. I have never heard any radical cleric claim terrorism was justified on the basis of the verses you have cited. From my understanding of the context of such verses, to do so would display an embarrasing ignorance of their meaning.

YouTube - British Muslim cleric supports London Bombings and terror!!

 

[shiznit770]

YouTube - British Muslim cleric supports London Bombings and terror!!

Is this guy a terrorist? I'm pretty sure he's a deranged cleric who was kicked out of his group for a reason. The perpetrators of the London bombings made videotapes of their motivations, which turn out to be political and vengeance rather than interpretation of religious texts.

These attacks were heinous and those responsible evil, but their motivations were not derived from the texts of Islam.

 

[Laila]

The Sword verses of the Qu'ran

Qur'an 9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

Sigh, more verses outweigh that minority.

If any one kill a person, it would be as if he kill the whole people, and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the whole people." Qur'an, 5:32.

Say O people of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you that we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, lords and patrons other than God. If then they turn back, say: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to God's Will)." Qur'an, 3:64.

Let it be known, if any one (Muslim) commits injustice, insults, aggravates, mistreats or abuses a person of the People of the Book (protected, by the state or an agreement), he will have to answer me (for his immoral action) on the Day of Judgment.

Under those rulings is what allowed Jews and minorities to stay protected within Muslim communities for hundreds of years whilst the west and Europe killed them off.

All through Hadiths and Qu'ran, instances of Islam's true nature of tolerance and peace can be seen. One of your verses is in reference to when the Pagans attacked the Muslims. Prophet Mohammed [MPBUP] rightly attacked back. It was a war, did you expect him to write 'and throw flowers at them'
They betrayed Muslims not the other way around, he just responded to protect his people.

No one can fault the Prophet's action or response otherwise you'd be a hypocrite, the same scenario is playing out even today.

Have you ever even read the Constitution of Medina?
The amount of times Prophet Mohammed respected the people of the book and especially Jews in our teachings and book is alot. Alot more than you'd ever see in the Bible.

I see you ignore that Prophet Mohammed stood up in respect for a Jew's funeral, or he visited a sick jewish neighbour, or Muslims protected Jews.
Oh no, you stick to the few verses like someone who is bitter and cannot let go.

 

[SgtRock]

All through Hadiths and Qu'ran, instances of Islam's true nature of tolerance and peace can be seen. One of your verses is in reference to when the Pagans attacked the Muslims. Prophet Mohammed [MPBUP] rightly attacked back. It was a war, did you expect him to write 'and throw flowers at them'
They betrayed Muslims not the other way around, he just responded to protect his people.

Mohammad was a prophet, messenger of Allah. If that is true then he would have turned the other cheek as Jesus did.

Muhammad was a warrior, a thief, a pedophile (A'isha), a murder and a lier. Not very becoming of a so called prophet unless he was a messenger of satan. This is what I believe. He was evil, islam is evil, and those who murder innocents in Allahs (satan) name today are evil.

 

[Laila]

Mohammad was a prophet, messenger of Allah. If that is true then he would have turned the other cheek as Jesus did.

So it was wrong for him to defend his people and himself from a threat? Is that what you are saying?
Think very carefully before answering seeing US had done the exact same thing. Does that make them evil?

He didn't consumate the marriage at 9, get over it. The amount of times i hear this is unbelieveable.

Those who murder unjustly are evil and will be going hell. Prophet Mohammed [MPBUP] will be in the highest heaven

Why do you ignore the fact the Qu'ran speaks highly of the people of the book or the peaceful verses? You really are bitter but why, im not sure.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Why do you ignore the fact the Qu'ran speaks highly of the people of the book or the peaceful verses?

Because that would eliminate 90% of what some folks around here want to talk about. They might have to look at things objectively.

 

[Orion]

The only people I see quoting scripture are the pseudo-experts in the West who think they understand the motivations of terrorism to the East. The vast majority of the time, the terrorists have been claiming political reasons for the attacks, not religious reasons. Not that any of the Islam "experts" would be able to acknowledge that. How could they when they don't know any Middle Eastern languages and therefore can't look up the full story?

If Islam were a religion of war in the modern era, then we would be seeing a much more violent, united front coming from the Middle East. But we're not. It's politics, plain and simple. Why are some Muslim countries not involved in wars at all, while others are? It's a simple question and not many of the "experts" try to put it forward.

Islam is not the problem... political agendas are.

 

[Orion]

As an addendum, the Quran is supposed to be the word of Allah direct from the heavens itself. To motify it would be sacrilegious, which is why even the components that speak to a violent past are still included and known today. But to willingly omit the vast majority of peaceful passages in favor of honing in on ones that are essentially obsolete is nothing more than agenda filled garbage.

You can cherry pick the Bible or the Torah, or any holy book, put the selected sections in quotes, and shout on and on about how it's supporting violence. The fact is, people still have a choice, which most religions also acknowledge.

 

[Laila]

If Islam were a religion of war in the modern era, then we would be seeing a much more violent, united front coming from the Middle East. But we're not. It's politics, plain and simple. Why are some Muslim countries not involved in wars at all, while others are? It's a simple question and not many of the "experts" try to put it forward.

Islam is not the problem... political agendas are.

Exactly
If it was Islam that was behind this hatred of the west, why am i and hundreds of millions of other Muslims not in Iraq attempting to kill US Soldiers or blowing themselves up.

Besides, those who bombed London trains and buses citied political agendas and not religious behind the attack but many people cannot accept that.
Politics is behind this not Qu'ran and unless they do not start accepting that they will lose this battle against extremists because they will be approaching it the wrong way.

 

[Orion]

Exactly
If it was Islam that was behind this hatred of the west, why am i and hundreds of millions of other Muslims not in Iraq attempting to kill US Soldiers or blowing themselves up.

Besides, those who bombed London trains and buses citied political agendas and not religious behind the attack but many people cannot accept that.
Politics is behind this not Qu'ran and until they do, they will lose this battle against extremists because they will be approaching it the wrong way.

The most powerful nations know full and well that Islam is not the issue here, but they, like the radicals, are using Islam as a pawn to justify their campaigns. After all, if it's not about terrorism and not about defeating radical Islam, then what reason is there to invade nations in the Middle East that the public will accept? It's not like anyone is about to admit it's about strategic power and control over natural resources, because the public would be too morally outraged about that. But I promise you, that is all it's about on the foreign front.