• Islam in Britain
    328 replies, posted
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21457506]It's funny because you haven't used any sort of logical argument, and you claim things about me which you could not possibly know or back up. Please be done, your posts are the ones that are nonsense, and it's getting irritating to read them.[/QUOTE] I think Clincalthought isn't even on this plane of reality... I wonder if he knows he's responding to us... [editline]02:37AM[/editline] I think we're arguing with a poor soul who's trapped in fucknuts crazy ville.
[QUOTE=Not Tishler;21457481]What are you doing? look at the title of the thread, clinicalthought, look at it closely.[/QUOTE] :derp: [quote] [quote]2. I am Kuffar, thus marked for death in an increasingly Muslim [B]world[/B][/quote] you mean the 3% of [B]England[/B], the most of them normal people who pay taxes?[/quote] [editline]09:40PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Not Tishler;21457536]I think Clincalthought isn't even on this plane of reality... I wonder if he knows he's responding to us... [editline]02:37AM[/editline] I think we're arguing with a poor soul who's trapped in fucknuts crazy ville.[/QUOTE] How look I'm going to argue like you: NO YOU'RE WRONG BECAUSE I SAID YOU'RE CRAZY NOTHING YOU SAY IS TRUE BECAUSE I SAID YOU'RE X AND Y AND Z BECAUSE I SAID SO WHICH MAKES ALL OF THE LOGICAL ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE YOU'VE USED TO SUPPORT THEM WRONG BECAUSE I SAID IN FACT YOU DIDN'T USE ANY LOGICAL ARGUMENTS OR PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE BECAUSE I SAID AND NO ONE CAN DISPUTE THIS BECAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S ALL RECORDED IN WRITING. This doesn't get anywhere.
so some unsourced projection means you're going to be killed because all Muslims eat jewish babies and hate everyone true story did your asylum worker slip you some oxycotton before you started posting? [editline]02:44AM[/editline] This thread is about ENGLAND, look at the title, clinicalthought. [editline]02:45AM[/editline] hold up, lets say your study is true. With the industrialization of Muslim countries, which is happening, of course you're going to see an increase of Muslim population.
[QUOTE=Not Tishler;21457702]so some [B]1. unsourced projection[/B] means you're going to be killed because all Muslims eat jewish babies and hate everyone true story did your asylum worker slip you some oxycotton before you started posting? [editline]02:44AM[/editline] [B]2.This thread is about ENGLAND[/B], look at the title, clinicalthought. [editline]02:45AM[/editline] hold up, lets say your study is true. [B]3. With the industrialization of Muslim countries, which is happening, of course you're going to see an increase of Muslim population.[/B][/QUOTE] 1. [url]http://muslim-canada.org/muslimstats.html[/url] 2. In response to "Tell me do you feel threatened by Muslims because you feel scared in some way?" which is a question directed at me personally I state the answer as it personally pertains to me. I don't understand what you are trying to prove here. 3. Then explain why the most massive population growths appear in the undeveloped Muslim countries? With industrialization the need for a high level of young population decreases, so really your point is contradictory.
- that source doesn't prove anything. It's not basing it on anything. - you're babbling incoherently again. - how... uh. what? you need able bodies in industrial nations. the fuck?
[QUOTE=Not Tishler;21458371]- that source doesn't prove anything. It's not basing it on anything. - you're babbling incoherently again. - how... uh. what? you need able bodies in industrial nations. the fuck?[/QUOTE] -ARE YOU SAYING THEM MUSLIMS ARE LIARS!?!?!?!? RACIST! And are you honestly trying to deny that the worldwide Muslim population is increasing? You may want to pick your battles a little better. -See, if you refuse to read or comprehend what I am saying, you can't just dismiss it as "incoherent babble". You say the thread is about England, which doesn't matter because I am answering a question that isn't about England. -Well I can see you have very little education, let me try to explain this to you. As industry grows the need for lots of children decreases, as farming no longer becomes a necessity for subsistence, most work is done by machines, chances of living to adulthood are increased, and the cost of supporting children in a modern society is much higher.
I never said children you idiot. I meant youth as in 20+ year olds. [editline]03:59AM[/editline] I'm not educated? You most likely spent your time in an asylum, instead of any form of schooling. who knows, maybe you'll be out by the time you can go into 6th grade.
[QUOTE=Not Tishler;21459082]I never said children you idiot. I meant youth as in 20+ year olds. [editline]03:59AM[/editline] I'm not educated? You most likely spent your time in an asylum, instead of any form of schooling. who knows, maybe you'll be out by the time you can go into 6th grade.[/QUOTE] What do 20+ have to do with population growth? Aside from IMMIGRATION DUN DUN DUN...
I don't think he's actually talking to us I think his asylum worker is writing down the shit he rambles on and just pastes it to random people. [editline]05:26AM[/editline] Clinicalthought is not arguing, he probably doesn't even know what facepunch is.
[QUOTE=Not Tishler;21460288]I don't think he's actually talking to us I think his asylum worker is writing down the shit he rambles on and just pastes it to random people. [editline]05:26AM[/editline] Clinicalthought is not arguing, he probably doesn't even know what facepunch is.[/QUOTE] So when confronted with being wrong (I guess your lack of brain power has robbed you of this realization so far) you just had to resort to this kind of retardedness. I'm just going to take my victory and go to bed.
you're not even making sense [QUOTE]What do 20+ have to do with population growth? Aside from IMMIGRATION DUN DUN DUN... [/QUOTE] Is this English? [editline]05:57AM[/editline] and for a psychotic moron, you are so arrogant. [editline]05:58AM[/editline] your whole point is that if the population of Islam increases, they're going to kill you. i mean. How does one argue with this objectively.
Theres a bigger population growth of Chinese people than there are of Muslims. Does that mean that their going to take over the world as well?
The muslims will take over then the jew will buy them out it's a conpiracy omg
9:5 explained. The first paragraph in "HISTORY" really debunked the theory of "All non Muslims are condemned for death!" [release] Muslims are often questioned, "[I]Did not Muhammad call on all Muslims to kill the infidels?[/I]" [U]The answer is absolutely not![/U] Then, we are asked another question: "Why then does the Quran say, "fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?" (9:5). There are two interrelated answers to that question. The first is [I][B]historical[/B][/I]. The second is related to the [I][B]nature of the Quran[/B][/I] itself. [B]HISTORY:[/B] When the Islamic state was rapidly expanding in the seventh and eighth century, many people came under the direct governance of Muslims. These peoples belonged to different religions, races, ethnicities, etc. If the hypothesis that "Muslims are required to eradicate non-Muslims or "infidels" was correct, then a pattern of deliberate extermination, forced conversions, and/or expulsion would have been observed throughout the history of Islam, especially when Muslims were powerful and winning over their opponents. That systematic pattern is simply absent. For example, let us take India. India (or considerable parts of it) was for several centuries under the Muslim Mughal Empire. Many of the subjects of the empire, up to and including very high-ranking state officials, were Hindu. (This does [B]not [/B]mean that Hindus lived under no discrimination whatsoever. But this is another issue.) Till now, India is a predominantly Hindu country. The facts on the ground belie the hypothesis that Muslims have believed that non-Muslims should be killed, evicted, or forced to convert. Another example: in contemporary Egypt, which was included in the Islamic state only ten years after the demise of the Prophet, about 6-10% of the people [U][B]are[/B][/U] Christians. Contrast this with Spain. For about eight centuries, Spain was a place of peaceful co-existence for Muslims, Christians, and Jews. (Again, I am not, at all, claiming that everyone enjoyed the same rights under the Arab/Muslim ruling.) However, in 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella signed the Edict of Expulsion designed to rid Spain of its Jews. The Jews were given a stark choice: baptism or deportation. An estimated 50,000 fled to the Ottoman empire where they were warmly welcomed. And about 70,000 converted to Christianity and remained in the country only to be plagued by the Inquisition which accused them of insincerity. In 1499, the Spanish state gave its Muslims the same choice: convert or leave. The result of these policies was simple: Spain almost entirely got rid of millions of people who were not Christians. (Spain now of course has minority groups, including Muslims coming mainly from North Africa as immigrants.) The list goes on. Investigating history clearly shows that most (saying "all" cannot sustain historical scrutiny) Muslims have never believed that they are under obligation to exterminate non-Muslims, or as non-Muslims refer to such people as "Infidels". Of course, it would not be scholastic to say non-Muslims, at many times, enjoyed "full citizenship" (though this term is an anachronism in the context discussed here) but compared to other locations, minorities were significantly better off under Muslim ruling, when Muslims were in fact capable of inflicting severe harm on non-Muslims, especially if we were to acknowledge the absurd notion of Muslims ambition to "kill the infidels..." I thought it was best to stop here for a few minutes to scrutinize this term "Infidel". We have heard, over and over again, the majority of commentators and "experts" on Islam using this term and attributing it to Islam's and Muslims sentimentality of non-Muslims. I, as a Muslim, have never called a non-Muslim an "Infidel", so this word was actually foreign to my vocabulary, until I have heard it mentioned several time by Christian and Zionist so-called "experts" on Islam. As a matter of fact, I took the liberty of going through several widely used translations of the Quran to find this oft-spoken "infidel" term. The translations of the Quran of which I researched included: M. Khan, Yusuf Ali, Shakir, and Pickthal, only to find out that in all of these translations, I did [U][B]not[/B][/U] find this word "infidel" in any of them! The Arabic word "Kaafir, Kafir, Kufar" was translated as Disbelievers or Unbelievers. What's more interesting, after digging deeper, we discovered this term was being used centuries before the advent of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The term infidel comes from the Latin word infidelis, which means "unbelieving" or "unfaithful." During the Middle Ages ( A.D.c. 450–c. 1500), the Catholic Church (Christians) used the term to describe Muslims (followers of Islam, the religion founded by the prophet Muhammad; c. A.D.570–632). Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary states the following on the term "infidel": Main Entry: [B]in·fi·del [/B] Pronunciation: 'in-f&-d & l, -f&-"del Function: [I]noun [/I] Etymology: Middle English [I]infidele, [/I]from Middle French, from Late Latin [I]infidelis [/I]unbelieving, from Latin, unfaithful, from [I]in- + fidelis [/I]faithful -- more at [URL="http://www.muslimaccess.com/dictionary/fidelity"]FIDELITY [/URL] [B]1: [/B][U][I]one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity [/I][/U] [B]2 a[/B][B]: [/B]an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion [B]b [/B][B]: [/B]one who acknowledges no religious belief [B]3[/B][B]: [/B]a disbeliever in something specified or understood - [B]infidel [/B][I]adjective [/I] [B]Two remaining points: [/B] (1) There is the claim that Muslims only refrained from killing the infidels because of the economic benefits of "enslaving" them. Most of those who claim this also claim that Muslims are inherently violent because of the "clear" Quranic injunctions against the "Infidels". This position is, at least, contradictory. Because on the one hand, Muslims' violence is rooted in the Quran, and, on the other hand, generations upon generations of Muslims simply discarded the Quran for their economic well-being. If Muslims persistently and universally prefer economic prosperity to the Quran and the commandments of the Prophet, then both the Quran and the Prophet are irrelevant to them. So why the attempt to ground Muslim behavior in the Quran and the Prophetic tradition if these are in fact not important at all to Muslims? If Muslims stick to the Quran, so why did not they exterminate the other, a policy allegedly supported unequivocally by the Quran? There is no way out of this fallacious reasoning except by saying that Muslims evoke whatever serves their interest. This statement of the entire Muslim nation being innately incoherent and immoral is espoused by many Islamophobes This statement tells us much more about the [URL="http://www.islamophobia.org/"]Islamophobes[/URL] themselves than about Muslims, however. (2) In the modern era, some Muslim people participated in the genocide of non-Muslims, such as the Armenians by the Turks and the East Timorese by the Indonesians. However, these killings were undertaken by secular regimes for nationalistic reasons. I do not think anyone can claim, for instance, that Ataturk, the father of the secularized Turkey and the abolisher of the Islamic caliphate, oppressed the Armenians (and the Greeks), to rid Turkey of them, in the name of Islam. (A relevant link this discussion concerning the genocide in Rwanda and the attitude of Muslims.) [B]THE QURAN: [/B] (1) The Quran is not classified subject-wise. Verses on various topics appear in dispersed places in the Quran and no order can be ascertained from the sequence of its text. The first verses revealed in the Quran was in[URL="http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/096.asp"][B]chapter (surah) 96[/B][/URL]][B]. [/B] (2) The structure of the Quran makes it necessary to approach it using the dialectic "both and" methodology of reasoning. This means that to investigate a certain issue, the verses pertaining to the issue should be gathered together. The verses are then analyzed comprehensively while paying attention to the historical context (in Islamic terminology called the "occasion of revelation") of each verse. The truth is considered to be found in all the relevant verses, because if the Quran is divine as the vast majority of Muslims believe, it should be free from real contradictions and inconsistencies. Apparent contradictions are not only reconciled and transcended but are thoroughly investigated because they actually reflect deep meanings and paradigms. (This is akin, for example, to the process of understanding the Chinese idiom, "a man is stronger than iron and weaker than a fly." Although the wise saying is superficially self-contradictory, it reveals a deep fact about humans who, in some situations, are very strong. Yet, in other contexts, these same people are very weak.) If the reductionist approach to the Quran is valid, then all ideas, from violence to absolute pacifism, can be justified and rationalized using the Quran. For the Quran does not only contain verses about war, it is also replete with verses about forgiveness and countering evil with good. (3) The same Quran that reads, "Whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you" 2:194also reads, "Goodness and evil are not the same. So repel evil with goodness, then the one who had enmity between you becomes a trusted and dear friend" 41:34]). When it comes to dealing with a transgressor, the Quran is basically delineating four different strategies, the validity of which is contingent on the [I][B]situational[/B][/I] and [I][B]contextual[/B][/I] factors. The first is retaliation which is permissible on the condition that it does not exceed the limits. Verse ([URL="http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/002.asp#194"]]2:194][/URL]) is clear on this, "whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you." Verse 16:126 gives the same meaning, "and if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted." Verse (3:134) gives the other three strategies, "and those who restrain their anger and pardon men; and God loves the doers of good to others." The three methods given here are, (a) to restrain one's anger and not respond, (b) to pardon the wrongdoer, and (c) to do good to the transgressor. According to verse, method (c) is the most beloved by God. Here the Quran teaches the superiority, in the sight of God, of responding to evil with goodness. Now what should the Muslim do when wronged? It depends on the context, on the situational factors. Under some circumstances, the wrongdoer must be punished. Under others, one should refrain from retaliation, or go a step further to wholehearted forgiveness, or even repel the transgressor's evil with goodness. The above is important for explaining how to deal with the Quranic text. (4) The Quranic principle for dealing with the 'other' non-Muslim is clear from verses (60:8-9), "God does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of your religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely God loves the doers of justice. God only forbids you respecting and loving those who made war upon you on account of your religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up others in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust." The Quran does not present Islam as a religion of unquestionable pacifism or relentless aggression. Those who do not transgress should be treated humanely and benevolently with complete respect. Those who transgress should be fought, "And fight in the cause of God those who fight against you, and do not commit aggression. Indeed God does not love those who are aggressors," (2:190]). In other words, Islam is a religion of peace, not in the sense that it is pacifist, but in the sense that Muslims [B]can [/B]and [B]should [/B]co-exist peacefully with others who respect them. Neither transgression is permitted nor forcing others to espouse Islam as the Quran says, "there is no compulsion in religion," (2:256) (5) Based on the above, we can now investigate verse (9:5), "[I]But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.[/I]" One of the main concerns of [I]Chapter (Surah) [/I]9 of the Quran (a [I]Surah [/I]is a collection of verses) was to delineate the strategies for dealing with the polytheists of the Arabian Peninsula after the Muslims, under the leadership of Prophet Muhammad, peacefully captured Mecca (In January, 630, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his followeres were joined by tribe after tribe along their way to Mecca. They entered Mecca without bloodshed and the Meccans, seeing the tide had turned, joined them.) the city that since the beginning of Islam lead the oppression and persecution of the Muslim converts. (6) Since the polytheists differed in their relationship with the new religion after its victory, there was a need to differentiate between the malevolent enemies of Islam bent on destroying the Muslims and who did not observe their treaties with the Muslims, those who hated Islam but were willing to honor their treaties with Muslims, those who rejected Islam but peacefully co-existed with the Muslim community, etc. The aforementioned verse 9:5) was concerned with the most vehement opponents of the Islamic faith not by virtue of their refusal to be Muslims but by continually breaching their treaties with the Muslims and fighting them. Given that, their treatment is not equal, the complete verse says, "[I]So when the sacred months have passed away, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and keep them under observation, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely God is Forgiving, Merciful.[/I]" Meaning: so when the grace period (4 months) is past, and if the other party insists on fighting Islam, then a state of war is inevitable. The struggle may take the form of killing, or capture and imprisonment, or just keeping an eye on these enemies to fend off their evil if they decide to launch an offensive against Muslims. The punishment should be fair and just and, thus, must be proportional to the crimes actually committed. Not only this, but the pagans can repent and accept Islam, as evident from the last part of ([URL="http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/009.asp#5"]9:5[/URL]), or desist from attacking Muslims and ask for protection, as evident from the next verse ([URL="http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/009.asp#6"][]9:6[/URL]), "[I]If one amongst the pagans ask you for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure.[/I]" Understanding the verses' [B][I]historical[/I][/B] context is crucial, not to confine them to their context, but for a proper comprehension of their implications. Moreover, as shown previously, the verse must be interpreted along with all the other verses explicating how a Muslim should deal with others, Muslim or non-Muslim, including verse ([URL="http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/008.asp#61"][8:61][/URL]), "[I]And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in God; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing.[/I]" The worst thing to do with the Quran is to approach it seeking confirmation for what one already believes in and turning a blind eye to any evidence that is inconsistent with his/her pre-conceived attitudes and biases. Anyone can find in the Quran whatever he/she wants to prove. Anyone can do the same thing with the Bible. The challenge, however, is to make a judgment only after a thorough and exhaustive investigation of [B]all [/B]available Quranic evidence. A Muslim may become selective and simply ignore some indispensable principles while working out what she or he should do in a given situation. Apart from self-indulgence, the socio-political context plays an important role in inducing this selectivity. A Muslim living where she or he finds Islam constantly reviled, the Prophet perpetually vituperated, and the Quran persistently misquoted may respond apologetically by declaring Islam as an "obviously" pacifist religion, ignoring anything in the Quran and the Prophetic traditions testifying to the contrary. A Muslim witnessing his wife being raped and his children slaughtered will very likely discard the well-established Islamic rules of engagement. The prevalent conditions are not a valid justification, but Muslims are humans after all, and humans — all humans — succumb to their overwhelming context. (Interestingly, the context was correctly and convincingly evoked in the U.S. media to understand the Abu Gharib prison abuses. When it comes to why some Muslims go to extremes, there is no context, only a culture of evil and fanaticism.)[/release] [URL]http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/jihad/kill_the_infidels.asp[/URL] Islamic rulers welcomed Judaism, Christianity and other various beliefs into their nation. For example; when Spain was ruled by the Muslims. But when Spain was ruled by the Christians, they only allowed Christians to enter. So tell me, which religion is the hostile one here that refused to acknowledge other religions?
CriticalThought, I see that your arguments are making no heaping shred of sense, you are babbling from one thing from the next about, how Muslim Population growth will kill us all and how Muslims are some sort of evil military group bent on world domination. Hell, with your Xenophobic logic, we should Murder Black people for being in an other continent than theirs and kill Chinese people for dense population.
I'm fucking SICK and TIRED of fucking Muslims or fucking immigrant dickheads coming in without the correct paperwork and getting a house, a car, a fucking £300 week dole and all paperwork filled out with them, FUCK asylum, FUCK illegal immigrants, FUCK the government. I want the BNP to change their rules to not "Get every nigger out the country" to "Get every fucking [B]ILLEGAL[/B] immigrant out of this country. God damn fucking country, government, here's a tip - Stop fucking sucking the thumb of immigrants - LISTEN TO YOUR PEOPLE. FUCK!
The is absolutely, THE most retarded thing you could have posted, and I'm not even going to get into the fact that's it's from a Muslim website. [QUOTE=starpluck;21462224]9:5 explained. The first paragraph in "HISTORY" really debunked the theory of "All non Muslims are condemned for death!" [release] Muslims are often questioned, "[I]Did not Muhammad call on all Muslims to kill the infidels?[/I]" [U]The answer is absolutely not![/U] Then, we are asked another question: "Why then does the Quran say, "fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?" (9:5). There are two interrelated answers to that question. The first is [I][B]historical[/B][/I]. The second is related to the [I][B]nature of the Quran[/B][/I] itself. [B]HISTORY:[/B] When the Islamic state was rapidly expanding in the seventh and eighth century, many people came under the direct governance of Muslims. These peoples belonged to different religions, races, ethnicities, etc. If the hypothesis that "Muslims are required to eradicate non-Muslims or "infidels" was correct, then a pattern of deliberate extermination, forced conversions, and/or expulsion would have been observed throughout the history of Islam, especially when Muslims were powerful and winning over their opponents. [highlight]Saying that the goal of Islam can't be the eradication of all non-Muslims because at some point in history they were not immediately killed does not come close to debunking the fact of the Quran's order is to "slay them wherever you find them".[/highlight] That systematic pattern is simply absent. For example, let us take India. India (or considerable parts of it) was for several centuries under the Muslim Mughal Empire. Many of the subjects of the empire, up to and including very high-ranking state officials, were Hindu. (This does [B]not [/B]mean that Hindus lived under no discrimination whatsoever. But this is another issue.) Till now, India is a predominantly Hindu country. [I]The facts on the ground belie the hypothesis that Muslims have believed that non-Muslims should be killed, evicted, or forced to convert.[/I] [highlight]No it doesn't at all, for all of history the Hindu population has vastly outnumbered the Muslim population in India and that would make attempting to exterminate then unfeasible. What happened in India was not the Muslims and the Hindus living peacefully side-by-side, in fact it was the opposite of that: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus#During_Islamic_rule_of_the_Indian_sub-continent[/url] "The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period."[/highlight] Another example: in contemporary Egypt, which was included in the Islamic state only ten years after the demise of the Prophet, about 6-10% of the people [U][B]are[/B][/U] Christians. Contrast this with Spain. For about eight centuries, Spain was a place of peaceful co-existence for Muslims, Christians, and Jews. (Again, I am not, at all, claiming that everyone enjoyed the same rights under the Arab/Muslim ruling.) However, in 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella signed the Edict of Expulsion designed to rid Spain of its Jews. The Jews were given a stark choice: baptism or deportation. An estimated 50,000 fled to the Ottoman empire where they were warmly welcomed. And about 70,000 converted to Christianity and remained in the country only to be plagued by the Inquisition which accused them of insincerity. In 1499, the Spanish state gave its Muslims the same choice: convert or leave. The result of these policies was simple: Spain almost entirely got rid of millions of people who were not Christians. (Spain now of course has minority groups, including Muslims coming mainly from North Africa as immigrants.) [highlight][I]Beginning in the 8th century, Muslims had occupied and settled most of the Iberian Peninsula. Jews who had lived in these regions since Roman times, considered 'People of the Book' (dhimmis), were given special status, and thus thrived under Muslim rule, although persecutions were not unknown, such as the pogroms in Cordova (1011) and Granada (1066). The Jews supported and sometimes even assisted the Muslim invaders due to the harsh treatment of the Jews by the Visigothic rulers of the Iberian Peninsula.[/I] Also note where it says "occupied and settled" was actually conquered by an Islamic army. Again, reference to dhimmis not be killed is not proof that Islam does not advocate eradicating "infidels" as followers of any of the other Abrahamic religions were awarded special status of living on the shit end of society instead of being murdered. And one can only live under dhimmitude if they acknowledge that Islam is greater.[/highlight] The list goes on. Investigating history clearly shows that most ([B]saying "all" cannot sustain historical scrutiny --- AT LEAST THEY GOT THAT RIGHT[/B]) Muslims have never believed that they are under obligation to exterminate non-Muslims, or as non-Muslims refer to such people as "Infidels". Of course, it would not be scholastic to say non-Muslims, at many times, enjoyed "full citizenship" (though this term is an anachronism in the context discussed here) but compared to other locations, minorities were significantly better off under Muslim ruling, when Muslims were in fact capable of inflicting severe harm on non-Muslims, especially if we were to acknowledge the absurd notion of Muslims ambition to "kill the infidels..." [highlight]Pay attention to "full citizenship" being in quotes. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi[/url][/highlight] I thought it was best to stop here for a few minutes to scrutinize this term "Infidel". We have heard, over and over again, the majority of commentators and "experts" on Islam using this term and attributing it to Islam's and Muslims sentimentality of non-Muslims. [highlight]TIME FOR AN ANECDOTAL STORY ABOUT THE USE OF A NON ARABIC WORD... WHAT DOES THIS PROVE?[/highlight] I, as a Muslim, have never called a non-Muslim an "Infidel", so this word was actually foreign to my vocabulary, until I have heard it mentioned several time by Christian and Zionist so-called "experts" on Islam. As a matter of fact, I took the liberty of going through several widely used translations of the Quran to find this oft-spoken "infidel" term. The translations of the Quran of which I researched included: M. Khan, Yusuf Ali, Shakir, and Pickthal, only to find out that in all of these translations, I did [U][B]not[/B][/U] find this word "infidel" in any of them! The Arabic word "Kaafir, Kafir, Kufar" was translated as Disbelievers or Unbelievers. What's more interesting, after digging deeper, we discovered this term was being used centuries before the advent of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The term infidel comes from the Latin word infidelis, which means "unbelieving" or "unfaithful." During the Middle Ages ( A.D.c. 450–c. 1500), the Catholic Church (Christians) used the term to describe Muslims (followers of Islam, the religion founded by the prophet Muhammad; c. A.D.570–632). Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary states the following on the term "infidel": Main Entry: [B]in·fi·del [/B] Pronunciation: 'in-f&-d & l, -f&-"del Function: [I]noun [/I] Etymology: Middle English [I]infidele, [/I]from Middle French, from Late Latin [I]infidelis [/I]unbelieving, from Latin, unfaithful, from [I]in- + fidelis [/I]faithful -- more at [URL="http://www.muslimaccess.com/dictionary/fidelity"]FIDELITY [/URL] [B]1: [/B][U][I]one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity [/I][/U] [B]2 a[/B][B]: [/B]an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion [B]b [/B][B]: [/B]one who acknowledges no religious belief [B]3[/B][B]: [/B]a disbeliever in something specified or understood - [B]infidel [/B][I]adjective [/I] [B]Two remaining points: [/B] (1) There is the claim that Muslims only refrained from killing the infidels because of the economic benefits of "enslaving" them. Most of those who claim this also claim that Muslims are inherently violent because of the "clear" Quranic injunctions against the "Infidels". This position is, at least, contradictory. Because on the one hand, Muslims' violence is rooted in the Quran, and, on the other hand, generations upon generations of Muslims simply discarded the Quran for their economic well-being. If Muslims persistently and universally prefer economic prosperity to the Quran and the commandments of the Prophet, then both the Quran and the Prophet are irrelevant to them. So why the attempt to ground Muslim behavior in the Quran and the Prophetic tradition if these are in fact not important at all to Muslims? If Muslims stick to the Quran, so why did not they exterminate the other, a policy allegedly supported unequivocally by the Quran? There is no way out of this fallacious reasoning except by saying that Muslims evoke whatever serves their interest. This statement of the entire Muslim nation being innately incoherent and immoral is espoused by many Islamophobes This statement tells us much more about the [URL="http://www.islamophobia.org/"]Islamophobes[/URL] themselves than about Muslims, however. [highlight]Here it is trying to say that because some individuals disregarded their religious teaching, that somehow changes the religious teaching? I am going to claim again that Muslims refrained from killing the infidels because of economic benefits. Once under dhimmitude, there was nothing the dhimmis were allowed to do to prevent the spread of Islam lest be killed. By saying that because they allowed to live does nothing to refute slaying the "pagans" wherever they are found because only "People of the Book" were allowed the status of dhimmis, polytheists and secularists were killed. Also I would argue that under Muslim rule and with such restrictions placed on them, their culture and religion in the region was essentially already dead and gone, and the Muslims only need wait for them to go to the grave before it is finished outright.[/highlight] (2) In the modern era, some Muslim people participated in the genocide of non-Muslims, such as the Armenians by the Turks and the East Timorese by the Indonesians. However, these killings were undertaken by secular regimes for nationalistic reasons. I do not think anyone can claim, for instance, that Ataturk, the father of the secularized Turkey and the abolisher of the Islamic caliphate, oppressed the Armenians (and the Greeks), to rid Turkey of them, in the name of Islam. [highlight]I'm just going to point out that Muslim nationalism is Islamism as they are promoting an Islamic society.[/highlight] (A relevant link this discussion concerning the genocide in Rwanda and the attitude of Muslims.) [B]THE QURAN: [/B] (1) The Quran is not classified subject-wise. Verses on various topics appear in dispersed places in the Quran and no order can be ascertained from the sequence of its text. The first verses revealed in the Quran was in[URL="http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/096.asp"][B]chapter (surah) 96[/B][/URL]][B]. [/B] (2) The structure of the Quran makes it necessary to approach it using the dialectic "both and" methodology of reasoning. This means that to investigate a certain issue, the verses pertaining to the issue should be gathered together. The verses are then analyzed comprehensively while paying attention to the historical context (in Islamic terminology called the "occasion of revelation") of each verse. [highlight]He says that "no order can be ascertained from the sequence of its text." this only means that by looking only at the text with no knowledge it is impossible to ascertain order, as the Quran is not arranged chronologically. You see here: "occasion of revelation" is when Muhammad revealed the verse, and if a verse revealed later in time contradicted a previous verse, then the previous verse was the one disregarded as it was, according to Muhammad, Allah who was revealing the new, correct information to him. You will see below where he says that contradictions are reconciled, also he tries to hide the nature of what is actually happening. The Quran is basically a written document of Muhammad's life, so while you can read the early texts and gain insight and information, ultimately that information is irrelevant to what is Islam as it is abrogated by information revealed later.[/highlight] The truth is considered to be found in all the relevant verses, because if the Quran is divine as the vast majority of Muslims believe, it should be free from real contradictions and inconsistencies. Apparent contradictions are not only reconciled and transcended but are thoroughly investigated because they actually reflect deep meanings and paradigms. (This is akin, for example, to the process of understanding the Chinese idiom, "a man is stronger than iron and weaker than a fly." Although the wise saying is superficially self-contradictory, it reveals a deep fact about humans who, in some situations, are very strong. Yet, in other contexts, these same people are very weak.) If the reductionist approach to the Quran is valid, then all ideas, from violence to absolute pacifism, can be justified and rationalized using the Quran. For the Quran does not only contain verses about war, it is also replete with verses about forgiveness and countering evil with good. [highlight]I'd like to point out that he says [B]IF the reductionist approach is valid...[/B] yet he has been pretty definitive beforehand. This is because the that approach isn't valid, and anything revealed earlier is abrogated by anything revealed later. This makes it impossible to see the Quran in it's totality and the Muslim scholars will agree with me that the later revelations are the only true divine word.[/highlight] (3) The same Quran that reads, "Whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you" 2:194 [highlight]First off I would like to point out this is not the full verse, and this verse pertains to the prohibited month only.[/highlight] also reads, "Goodness and evil are not the same. So repel evil with goodness, then the one who had enmity between you becomes a trusted and dear friend" 41:34]). [highlight]This verse is also not the in proper context, the passage is inciting that when confronted with enmity, "be as if he were a warm friend." So basically act friendly to him, yes this is what Muslims do regardless of what they think of you. That doesn't mean they are actually friendly towards you.[/highlight] When it comes to dealing with a transgressor, the Quran is basically delineating four different strategies, the validity of which is contingent on the [I][B]situational[/B][/I] and [I][B]contextual[/B][/I] factors. The first is retaliation which is permissible on the condition that it does not exceed the limits. Verse ([URL="http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/002.asp#194"]]2:194][/URL]) is clear on this, "whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you." Verse 16:126 gives the same meaning, "and if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted." [highlight]Well the wording here may be the same, they are about entirely different topics. Verse 16:126 is regarding trying to convert people to Islam.[/highlight] Verse (3:134) gives the other three strategies, "and those who restrain their anger and pardon men; and God loves the doers of good to others." The three methods given here are, (a) to restrain one's anger and not respond, (b) to pardon the wrongdoer, and (c) to do good to the transgressor. According to verse, method (c) is the most beloved by God. Here the Quran teaches the superiority, in the sight of God, of responding to evil with goodness. [highlight]I'd like to point out that these are strategies for dealing with Muslims, not non-Muslims[/highlight] Now what should the Muslim do when wronged? It depends on the context, on the situational factors. Under some circumstances, the wrongdoer must be punished. Under others, one should refrain from retaliation, or go a step further to wholehearted forgiveness, or even repel the transgressor's evil with goodness. [B]The above is important for explaining how to deal with the Quranic text. --- NOT REALLY AS YOU CAN SEE [/B] (4) The Quranic principle for dealing with the 'other' non-Muslim is clear from verses (60:8-9), "God does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of your religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely God loves the doers of justice. God only forbids you respecting and loving those who made war upon you on account of your religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up others in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust." The Quran does not present Islam as a religion of unquestionable pacifism or relentless aggression. Those who do not transgress should be treated humanely and benevolently with complete respect. Those who transgress should be fought, "And fight in the cause of God those who fight against you, and do not commit aggression. Indeed God does not love those who are aggressors," (2:190]). In other words, Islam is a religion of peace, not in the sense that it is pacifist, but in the sense that Muslims [B]can [/B]and [B]should [/B]co-exist peacefully with others who respect them. [highlight]This is kind of misleading as "respect" refers to either being a Muslim or being a Dhimmi.[/highlight] Neither transgression is permitted nor forcing others to espouse Islam as the Quran says, "there is no compulsion in religion," (2:256) [highlight]This has already been fully explained is previous posts and I'm not going to get into it again here. (2:256) is entirely wrong.[/highlight] (5) Based on the above, we can now investigate verse (9:5), "[I]But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.[/I]" One of the main concerns of [I]Chapter (Surah) [/I]9 of the Quran (a [I]Surah [/I]is a collection of verses) was to delineate the strategies for dealing with the polytheists of the Arabian Peninsula after the Muslims, under the leadership of Prophet Muhammad, peacefully captured Mecca (In January, 630, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his followeres were joined by tribe after tribe along their way to Mecca. They entered Mecca without bloodshed and the Meccans, seeing the tide had turned, joined them.) the city that since the beginning of Islam lead the oppression and persecution of the Muslim converts. [highlight]"Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, the leader of the Quraysh in Mecca, sensing that the balance was now tilted in Muhammad's favour and that the Quraish were not strong enough to stop the Muslims from conquering the city, travelled to Medina, trying to restore the treaty. During his stay, he was repulsed by Ali and by his own daughter Ramlah, who now was one of Muhammad's wives. Though Muhammad refused to reach an agreement and Abu Sufyan returned to Mecca empty handed, these efforts ultimately ensured that the conquest occurred without battle. Muhammad assembled an army of approximately 10,000 men and marched towards Mecca." I would also like to point out that the context is not "for dealing with the polytheists of the Arabian Peninsula" as the verse states: "fight and slay the Pagans [B]wherever ye find them[/B]"[/highlight] (6) Since the polytheists differed in their relationship with the new religion after its victory, there was a need to differentiate between the malevolent enemies of Islam bent on destroying the Muslims and who did not observe their treaties with the Muslims, those who hated Islam but were willing to honor their treaties with Muslims, those who rejected Islam but peacefully co-existed with the Muslim community, etc. The aforementioned verse 9:5) was concerned with the most vehement opponents of the Islamic faith not by virtue of their refusal to be Muslims but by continually breaching their treaties with the Muslims and fighting them. Given that, their treatment is not equal, the complete verse says, "[I]So when the sacred months have passed away, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and keep them under observation, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely God is Forgiving, Merciful.[/I]" Meaning: so when the grace period (4 months) is past, and if the other party insists on fighting Islam, then a state of war is inevitable. [highlight]I'd like to point out that it was the Muslim's who set this "grace period" at 4 months. I'd also like to point out that 9:5 is not about "the most vehement opponents of the Islamic faith" it is about any non-Abrahamic religions, and it is the Muslim perspective to determine whether they are "the most vehement opponents of the Islamic faith"[/highlight] The struggle may take the form of killing, or capture and imprisonment, or just keeping an eye on these enemies to fend off their evil if they decide to launch an offensive against Muslims. The punishment should be fair and just and, thus, must be proportional to the crimes actually committed. Not only this, but the pagans can repent and accept Islam, as evident from the last part of ([URL="http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/009.asp#5"]9:5[/URL]), or desist from attacking Muslims and ask for protection, as evident from the next verse ([URL="http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/009.asp#6"][]9:6[/URL]), "[I]If one amongst the pagans ask you for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure.[/I]" [highlight]It's funny that he tries to say "there is no compulsion is religion" and then points out that the only way for a pagan to avoid being killed or imprisoned is to convert to Islam[/highlight] Understanding the verses' [B][I]historical[/I][/B] context is crucial, not to confine them to their context, but for a proper comprehension of their implications. Moreover, as shown previously, the verse must be interpreted along with all the other verses explicating how a Muslim should deal with others, Muslim or non-Muslim, including verse ([URL="http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/008.asp#61"][8:61][/URL]), "[I]And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in God; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing.[/I]" The worst thing to do with the Quran is to approach it seeking confirmation for what one already believes in and turning a blind eye to any evidence that is inconsistent with his/her pre-conceived attitudes and biases. Anyone can find in the Quran whatever he/she wants to prove. Anyone can do the same thing with the Bible. The challenge, however, is to make a judgment only after a thorough and exhaustive investigation of [B]all [/B]available Quranic evidence. [highlight]Well when one considers that what is interpreted as divine and true in the Quran is related to when it was revealed chronologically, and when one considers the Surah 9:5 was on of the last things to be revealed, one can easily make the judgment on whether it confirms their belief or not.[/highlight] A Muslim may become selective and simply ignore some indispensable principles while working out what she or he should do in a given situation. Apart from self-indulgence, the socio-political context plays an important role in inducing this selectivity. A Muslim living where she or he finds Islam constantly reviled, the Prophet perpetually vituperated, and the Quran persistently misquoted may respond apologetically by declaring Islam as an "obviously" pacifist religion, ignoring anything in the Quran and the Prophetic traditions testifying to the contrary. A Muslim witnessing his wife being raped and his children slaughtered will very likely discard the well-established Islamic rules of engagement. The prevalent conditions are not a valid justification, but Muslims are humans after all, and humans — all humans — succumb to their overwhelming context. (Interestingly, the context was correctly and convincingly evoked in the U.S. media to understand the Abu Gharib prison abuses. When it comes to why some Muslims go to extremes, there is no context, only a culture of evil and fanaticism.) [/release] [URL]http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/jihad/kill_the_infidels.asp[/URL] Islamic rulers welcomed Judaism, Christianity and other various beliefs into their nation. For example; when Spain was ruled by the Muslims. But when Spain was ruled by the Christians, they only allowed Christians to enter. So tell me, which religion is the hostile one here that refused to acknowledge other religions?[/QUOTE] You lack knowledge about the Moorish invasion and the Reconquista to make that claim. As well of the fact that the actions of Christians have absolutely no bearing in an argument against Islam.
I'm proud to be part of a nation that was pretty much founded by Britain and i'd help them fight in a civil war.
As long as Labour is out of power it's an improvement
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21465138]The is absolutely, THE most retarded thing you could have posted, and I'm not even going to get into the fact that's it's from a Muslim website. You lack knowledge about the Moorish invasion and the Reconquista to make that claim. As well of the fact that the actions of Christians have absolutely no bearing in an argument against Islam.[/QUOTE] Okaly Dokaly, Mr. Crusades.
[QUOTE=mchapra;21466122]Okaly Dokaly, Mr. Crusades.[/QUOTE] I already posted this, but the Crusades were a retaliatory response to centuries of Muslim aggression and encroachment. And if you're so opposed to the Crusades than why are you in support of Jihad?
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21466217]I already posted this, but the Crusades were a retaliatory response to centuries of Muslim aggression and encroachment. And if you're so opposed to the Crusades than why are you in support of Jihad?[/QUOTE] Jihad is only Valid, if you were oppressed in the first place, also, war against Non-Muslims is counted as Lesser Jihad, while to strive oneself to a better Muslim is Higher Jihad. By the way, The crusades happened because the pope wanted all of the spoils of controlling Jerusalem for himself. I think you will not even read this and continue to ramble, because you are truly to thick in your head.
[QUOTE=mchapra;21466416]Jihad is only Valid, if you were oppressed in the first place, also, war against Non-Muslims is counted as Lesser Jihad, while to strive oneself to a better Muslim is Higher Jihad. By the way, The crusades happened because the pope wanted all of the spoils of controlling Jerusalem for himself. [B]I think you will not even read this and continue to ramble, because you are truly to thick in your head.[/B][/QUOTE] HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oh irony
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21466470]HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oh irony[/QUOTE] :irony:
[QUOTE=starpluck;21447763]Pedophilia with 3-year old slave girls in the Bible! Forcing 3-year old slave girls into sex during the Mosaic Law in the Bible! ([URL]http://www.answering-christianity.com/age3.htm[/URL]) More on Pedophilia and Rape in the Bible! ([URL]http://www.answering-christianity.com/ahmed_eldin/bible_supports_pedophilia_and_rape.htm[/URL]) Terror in the Bible by a number of Prophets! ([URL]http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/terrorinthebible.htm[/URL]) Pregnant women will be ripped open! ([URL]http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/pregnant_women_ripped_open.htm[/URL]) The NT punishes children with death! ([URL]http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/killing_children_honored_in_nt.htm[/URL]) Terrorism: "kill all the boys and non-virgin women"! Also under the Mosaic Law! ([URL]http://www.answering-christianity.com/age3.htm[/URL]) Another killing all men, women, children and animals by Moses! ([URL]http://www.answering-christianity.com/right_hand_possession.htm#real_terrorism[/URL]) Killing all of the "suckling infants" by the thousands by Saul! ([URL]http://www.answering-christianity.com/age3.htm[/URL]) --------- Your request. In " Christianity in the West 1400-1700" pg 86, we learn that Martin Luther believed that Jews should be enslaved or thrown out of Christian lands, and that their ghettos and synagogues should be burned. He also felt rebellious Anabaptist should be killed and publicly affirmed a 1531 edict by Wittenberg theologians sanctioning their execution. ("The Heretics: heresy through the ages") By Walter Nigg pgs 304-305. Martin Luther, the Catholic Church which persecuted and killed the Jews throughout the ages until they stopped it only in our current years, and [B][U]Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were not ignorant of Christianity [/U][/B] Let us look at the following verses: Acts 18:5-7 5 When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. 6 [U][B]But when the Jews opposed Paul and became abusive[/B][/U], he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles." 7 Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. In the Bible,[highlight] when your blood is on your head[/highlight], it means that you are to be killed: [B]Leviticus 20:9[/B] " 'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, [highlight]and his blood will be on his own head.[/highlight] [B] Leviticus 20:11[/B] " 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death;[highlight] their blood will be on their own heads.[/highlight] [B] Leviticus 20:13[/B] " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. [highlight]They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.[/highlight] And so on... So, when Paul told the Jews that your blood is on your heads, it clearly meant that if they insisted on rejecting Jesus as the Christ, then their [highlight]blood is on their head;[/highlight] killing them would be allowed. It is a capital punishment statement. [B]This goes for all Jews.[/B][/QUOTE] I never said Christianity isn't vile. I said that Christianity doesn't involve permanent warfare against unbelievers until the world is only for God and Jesus. Nothing you quote here commands that. What you need to do is compare the people the members of each faith seek to emulate. Jesus was celebate, while Muhammad fucked a 9 year old girl.
[QUOTE=mchapra;21466494]:irony:[/QUOTE] Yeah seriously Not only did you apparently not read everything I wrote, it's you who is continuing to ramble on and repeat yourself. You also evidently don't know anything about the crusades, and try to mask the meaning of Jihad with your erroneous explanation.
[QUOTE=MingusMajor;21448254]It's still an irrelevant conclusion, his argument about Christianity is probably valid, but does not address the issue in question which is that Islam is pretty much an 8th century ultra-violent version of Scientology.[/QUOTE] Exactly. I am not disputing that Christianity is vile. This isn't about Christianity. All the shit about how evil Christianity is, is nothing but deflection. You can harp on Christianity all you want, but nothing you say about it addresses or refutes what I say about Islam, and all the vileness in the world in the bible doesn't negate the fact that Islam contains the same shit and worse. [editline]04:28PM[/editline] [QUOTE=starpluck;21450799]It [B]is[/B] referring to any non-Christians. [release] If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, [highlight]And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; ... Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.[/highlight] -- Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:2-3,5[/release] It says anyone who served other gods, worshiped them, sun or moon, or any other host of heaven, [B]which I have not commanded[/B], then bring forth that person who committed that act, and stone them until they die.[/QUOTE] It's referring any heathens within the biblical land of Israel and Judea, not the world at large. That's the difference. If you were correct, then Zionism would be a globalist rather than regional phenomenon (some people do believe Zionism is a globalist phenomenon. they are known as "national socialists") Nice try. And it isn't referring to "non-Christians", it is referring to non-Hebrews. Christians didn't exist at the time of the old testament. Seriously, if that's the best you can do, you should just stop. Your ignorant equivocating only demonstrates how ignorant you really are when it comes to this subject. [editline]04:32PM[/editline] I find it interesting that all the folks here insisting that myself and Critical Thought are incorrect have completely ignored the majority of what we have posted. You cannot refute what we say about Islam, since we are working from the core texts and theologians that Muslims consider most authentic. Which is why the arguments against us consist of straw men, deflection and ad hominem.
[QUOTE=CriticalThought;21466536]Yeah seriously Not only did you apparently not read everything I wrote, it's you who is continuing to ramble on and repeat yourself. You also evidently don't know anything about the crusades, and try to mask the meaning of Jihad with your erroneous explanation.[/QUOTE] Sure, of course, you who have never even glanced at the Quran Know everything about it. Also I explained Jihad in it's correct definition, if you don't understand it, you are a very very thick and senile man.
[QUOTE=mchapra;21466795][B]1.Sure, of course, you who have never even glanced at the Quran Know everything about it.[/B] [B]2. Also I explained Jihad in it's correct definition[/B], if you don't understand it, you are a very very thick and [B]3. senile[/B] man.[/QUOTE] 1. This is proof that you have ignored all my posts 2. You did far from that 3. Doesn't know what this word means
[QUOTE=mchapra;21466795]Sure, of course, you who have never even glanced at the Quran Know everything about it. Also I explained Jihad in it's correct definition, if you don't understand it, you are a very very thick and senile man.[/QUOTE] So mchapra, I'm guessing you are an authority on Islam? So that means you're familiar not only with the Qur'an, but also the Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim ahadiths, the various other Hadiths that are of lesser import, the Sirat Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq and other Sirahs, the various schools of Fiqh, whether Sunni, Shi'a or Sufi, and the teachings of all notable fiqah of the Ulema, both ancient and modern? You are aware of the exegesis and isnad of such influential commentators as Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzzay, Ibn Abbas, Abu Al-`Aliyah, Al-Hasan ibn 'Ali, Qatadah ibn al-Nu'man, Malik ibn Anas, As-Suddi, Muqatil bin Hayyan, `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam, Abu Hurayrah, Mujahid, Ibn al-Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah and the other notable Ulema and Sahaba? If you are, you have a weird way of showing it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.