Islam is an Advocate of Peace, Not Terror

reply to post by mf_luder

Do you read what he writes? Seems to me you missed the entire point of his reply to you and your efforts to ignore my previous posts will only spur me to focus my FULL attention on this site on destroying your shoddy arguments and viewpoints.

Maybe you should go back and reread what he wrote, because apparently you didn't give it your full attention there, chuckles.

Amuse me here, tell me what is his main point, tell me what is his main claim, does he even have any.

Since he can't back up his claims he doesn't even mention them in his latest posts.

You step in, let's see if you can do any better.

Tell me what the claim is.

Here I will repost this so we can have a discussion, it is getting kinds boring mixed with annoyance. That is a worse mix than vodka and milk.

1. Quran is a revelation, not a scientific book.

2. Quran is the only thingy I have ever heard of, which is self testable. For example, it makes a claim: God knows everything.
And the test for that saying is within the Quran. You read other passages from the Quran and see if that statement passes the test. Does the passages in the Quran come from a being which knows everything?

3. Islam means peace, GOD states in the Quran how that peace is achievable. Let me elaborate:
We human beings have been at war with each other since we can remember, since as far as our written/verbal history can remember.

Throughout the history there is conclusive evidence that we had multiple GODS, that we believed in different GODS.

Not once in history was there a time when all human beings started believing in one GOD.

The Quran repeatedly states there is one GOD, the Quran puts a huge importance on that message, and states believe in one GOD.

If we human beings were smart enough, we would have for once in our damn history give this a try. Give it a try, what have you got to loose?

Believe in one GOD, everyone of us, see what the out come is.

That is just an over view of what we are suppose to do to gain peace. There are other important aspects also, for example in the Quran GOD has qualities, in other words, GOD has names. For example the MOST merciful, the MOST just.. etc..

If we believe in GOD with such qualities, we will have a perfect system which will allow to finally have the previliage of using the Quran how it is suppose to be used.

Let me elaborate:
"GOD is the most just"
That means justice is important, then if you think you will come to conclusion that you can't gain justice without truth, which leads us to the next quality of GOD hence:
"GOD knows all"

Ultimately all those qualities, under one GOD leads to peace.

If anyone is willing to discuss this issue with me I'm deeply interested.

And I want to know what other devoted Muslims, and Muslims who are more culturally devoted think about this (yes I'm talking about Sunnis and Shias etc).

Originally posted by LittleSecret
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Where is your proof of a false claim? Or are you saying it DOES apply to the People of the Book, too? Is that what you're claiming is false about it?

You have hit rock bottom

I'm not gonna repeat myself 20 times, if you have any claims in regards to Islam you want to discuss, post it.

So you can't counter it? Ok. I can live with that.

In conclusion, neno, you have outdone yourself in every possible way, not that I ever expected anything to come out of this discussion.

I strive for perfection.

"Kill them wherever you find them" applies only to infidels, unbelievers - not the People of the Book, right? The People of the Book only become legitimate targets if they refuse to pay the jizya tribute, and make themselves subjects under islam. Then they're fair game.

You made this comment, brought half a verse ""Kill them wherever you find them" and use it as the bases of your argument:

So then, the choices for polytheists, and all other unbelieving infidels, is conversion to islam or death. The People of the Book are a special case, no? The choice for them is jizya tribute and subjugation, or death - no conversion required for them...

I countered your claim, then you ended up trolling.

Good summary I suppose.

Ah, I see where your misunderstanding is, then. You assumed a single example formed an entire basis, and weren't able to discuss the other matters, like the subjugation of the People of the Book under islamic rule. You apparently thought I knew nothing of islam beyond that verse, and so could snow me. At no point have you countered the claim, though, even as you seem to have misunderstood it.

Good try, hard luck, huh?

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter... But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful... If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (2:190-193)

The quran defends itself, you can twist what ever you like, you will fail miserably.

"Transgress limits"... care to educate me on what those "limits" are? Careful, it could be a trick question...

"Turn them out from where they have turned you out"...

Should we not follow that philosophy, and re-contain islam to the Arabian Peninsula then, Specifically Makkah and Medinah? Everywhere else islam is practiced, the muslims were not the ones who got "turned out" to begin with...

"tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter..." and "let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression". Now, maybe we should take a poll among jews and christians... and every OTHER non-islamic religion that has to exist under islamic rule, as to what constitutes "oppression". Are you game to make such a survey?

Bring me a topic so I can teach you something

Teach me, oh Wise One...

reply to post by LittleSecret



Here's the deal....


Many of us out in the world believe in God! Just not in all the BS that men want to lay upon his words. By "Prophets, Priests, Preachers, Rabbis or Imans"


Can you wrap your head around that?

A God of our own understanding. Without the Archaic, Barbaric, perverse and twisted version of him or his teaching. Be it Jew, Christian or Muslim. That's not really fitting of an all loving higher power who many of us choose to call God.

Originally posted by LittleSecret

??
Bear with me, I got a hangover..

YOU have a hangover? Consumption of alcohol is decidedly un-islamic!

Don't worry, WE won't tell...

Edit to add: Vodka and milk? you must have a cast-iron stomach! Just the thought of the curdling makes my own stomach curdle, and it's not weak by ANY means...

[edit on 2010/7/7 by nenothtu]

reply to post by nenothtu

Ah, I see where your misunderstanding is, then. You assumed a single example formed an entire basis, and weren't able to discuss the other matters, like the subjugation of the People of the Book under islamic rule. You apparently thought I knew nothing of islam beyond that verse, and so could snow me. At no point have you countered the claim, though, even as you seem to have misunderstood it.

Good try, hard luck, huh?

The single verse was the only evidence you had throughout your posts. It seemed as if that verse was used as evidence for all your claims.


OK let's start from subjugation of the people of the book under Islamic rule.

Let's start with a question:
Is this rule in the Quran?

After this we go to other issues.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I believe different.

I believe this life has a meaning.

I don't just believe in GOD with no purpose.

I don't believe my existence has no purpose.

I have theory in the back of my head in regards to the purpose for our existence.

And I do believe GOD sent messages to us, and I do believe Islam is here to bring peace etc.

Originally posted by LittleSecret
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Ah, I see where your misunderstanding is, then. You assumed a single example formed an entire basis, and weren't able to discuss the other matters, like the subjugation of the People of the Book under islamic rule. You apparently thought I knew nothing of islam beyond that verse, and so could snow me. At no point have you countered the claim, though, even as you seem to have misunderstood it.

Good try, hard luck, huh?

The single verse was the only evidence you had throughout your posts. It seemed as if that verse was used as evidence for all your claims.

Apologies. I thought I was speaking to a muslim, who would have a grounding in islam. Do I need to go through a full lesson on who "The People of the Book" are, and how they are to be treated under islamic rule?

If so, how far back? In al-Andalus, or all the way back to the Battle of the Ditch? Or even further back?

OK let's start from subjugation of the people of the book under Islamic rule.

Let's start with a question:
Is this rule in the Quran?

After this we go to other issues.

The short answer is "yes", but you'll have to give me a few, since I have to turn the light on to ferret out the passages requiring that they either be killed or subjugated.

reply to post by nenothtu


You have to go party sometimes you know, I'm one of those people who needs continual change in my life. I can't do the same thing over and over again.

Basically I'm a variable ^^

I don't have one type of style, I don't have one type of accent, I don't have one type of personality, I don't have one type of girlfriend, and surely I don't drink one type of drink.

reply to post by nenothtu


Don't worry, I'm well away with Islamic terms, drinking doesn't mean you are not a Muslim lol.

People of the book are Jews and Christians.

Here use this, Quran search online:
www.islamicity.com...

You can search for words, different translations, for topics etc

it's a great website.

EditTOADD:
Here's one for you:

O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not take the jews and the Christians for your allies: they are but allies of one another [72] and whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them; behold, God does not guide such evildoers. [73]

but then I saw this:

60:8 (Asad) As for such [of the unbelievers] as do not fight against you on account of [your] faith, and neither drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity: [9] for, verily, God loves those who act equitably.


60:9 (Asad) God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of [your] faith, and drive you forth from your homelands, or aid [others] in driving you forth: and as for those [from among you] who turn towards them in friendship; it is they, they who are truly wrongdoers!

[edit on 7-7-2010 by LittleSecret]

reply to post by LittleSecret


Just a small correction here for what its worth, Islam doesnt mean peace at all it means submission or to submit. Islam is more than a religion it is a LAW, a constitution even. Muslims who consider themselves conservative, for peace, loving and considerate of other faiths are the sheep of islam and know not what their leaders true desires are.

Originally posted by lestweforget
reply to post by LittleSecret

 

Just a small correction here for what its worth, Islam doesnt mean peace at all it means submission or to submit. Islam is more than a religion it is a LAW, a constitution even. Muslims who consider themselves conservative, for peace, loving and considerate of other faiths are the sheep of islam and know not what their leaders true desires are.

Arabic words have many meanings, Islam can mean submission, and also can mean peace.

But when I say Islam is a formula for peace, I provided my thoughts on that, if you go at the top of the page you will see it.

Submission to ONE GOD with those qualities mentioned in the Quran.

It is a perfect formula for peace.

At the moment most, even Muslims practice idolatry, national idolatry.

Let me elaborate:

- I believe a nation is the new AGE GOD (idolatry), every nation has its qualities.
- We pray for a nation (national anthem)
- We work for a nation
- We die for a nation
- ...

- I believe in order for a nation to reach its maximum status based on its qualities, the people must submit to that nation.

- I believe we can never achieve peace as long as there is more than one GOD.

- The stories in the Quran has deep meanings, for example when a prophet goes and destroys the GODS of idolaters with an Axe. Then he puts the Axe on the shoulder of one of the idols. When the idolaters come and catch him and tell him why he did it, he tells them it wasn't me, it was the idol. The people say, don't be stupid, the idol couldn't have done that, idols do not have such capabilities. The prophet replies and asks them, "then why do you worship them".

This story shows what other GODS do not have. The one GOD with those qualities mentioned in the Quran can bring peace, eternal happiness, etc

We must worship that one GOD, live for that one GOD, die for that one GOD, basically submit.

So yes, submission to that ONE GOD with those qualities mentioned in Quran can ultimately bring peace.

We must ask those who worship nations, or worship idols etc, ask them why they worship those GODS when they have failed in so many levels.

I can go on, but someone has to be there to listen.

reply to post by kommunist

TextOne day I realized that both Bucky Fuller and Jim Henson had left the planet and that no one was manning the cockpit of Spaceship Earth. - Jim Channon

GREAT SIGNATURE!

Much food for thought there.

reply to post by LittleSecret


Sorry, the link to the searchable Qur'an wouldn't work. It requires Flash, and I've disabled Flash because of hacker issues. I had to do it the hard way...

This is one of those cases where having the Qur'an in chronological order, together with a slight knowledge of the historical context, will reveal more information. Because of that, I'll present the verses in their (rough) chronological order, and reference sura and verse, so you can re-arrange them to your liking. In keeping with your request that quotes be from the Qur'an itself, I've tried to stay with that, and leave out the hadith, and other writings. However, the hadith had to be referenced to ascertain the chronological order, but I've tried not to directly reference them.

Now, in the early years of Mohammed's mission, he was a prosperous merchant, and a respected man. After the beginnings of his revelations, and when he started preaching islam, the merchants of Makkah more or less turned on him. It got so bad, that it eventually reached the point that neither he nor the muslims (still a pretty small number) were allowed to worship at the Ka'aba. Why they (adherents of a monotheistic religion) wanted to worship at the Ka'aba, I don't quite get, since it was at the time a polytheistic shrine, housing something like 360 idols. But I digress. At that time, while muslim numbers were vanishingly small, and a far more numerous polytheist community was arrayed against them, Mohammed claimed to have received these revelations:

“... We have not sent thee to be a disposer of their affairs for them.” -Sura 17:54

"Say [O Mohammed]: "O men! I am but a plain warner [sent by God] unto you!" -Sura 22:49

“Repel evil with that which is best ... We are well acquainted with the things they say. And say, ‘O my Lord! I seek refuge with thee from the suggestions of the evil ones. And I seek refuge with thee of my Lord, lest they should come near me’” -Sura 23:96

"Say thou [o Prophet] 'knowledge thereof rests with God alone: and I am only a plain warner.'" -Sura 67:26

We see here an apparently peaceful demeanor. I'm sure Mohammed was plenty ticked off that he was disallowed access to the Ka'aba, but survival logic dictated that he get along as well as possible with the greater numbers arrayed against him, so he chose the peaceful path at that point.

Later, after the Hegira in 622 AD, we see a slight change, a modification in demeanor, towards what was thought of as "defensive warfare". These verses, from the early part of the Medina period, illustrate that change:

Say to the unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from unbelief), their past would be forgiven them, but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God altogether and everywhere. But if they cease, verily God doth see all that they do. If they refuse, be sure that God is your protector – the best to protect and the best to help. And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to God, – and to the Apostle, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer, – If you do believe in God and in the revelation we sent down to our servant on the day of testing, day of the meeting of the two forces. For God hath power over all things.

Remember ye were on the hither side of the valley, and they on the farther side, and the caravan on the lower ground than ye. Even if ye had made a mutual appointment to meet, ye could certainly have failed in the appointment, but (thus ye met), that God might accomplish a matter already enacted, that those who died might die after a clear sign (had been given), and those who lived might live after a clear sign (had been given). And verily God is He who heareth and knoweth (all things). -Suras 8:38-42

"Fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression" refers, of course, to the oppressive Meccans, who disallowed the muslims access to the Ka'aba. The part about "and there prevail justice and faith in God altogether and everywhere" shows a much wider, more ambitious agenda, in demanding "justice and faith in God ALTOGETHER and EVERYWHERE." Note that this portion is no longer constrained to just the Meccans.

He said "altogether and everywhere".

Sura 8:67-69 says:

"It is not fitting for an Apostle that he should have prisoners of war until he had thoroughly subdued the land.”

Thoroughly subdued the land. Sounds a lot like aspirations of conquest to me...

After his conquest of Makkah in 630 AD, when he had a large enough body of fighters to impose his will wherever he wished, the revelations change yet again, to reflect that newfound strength, and reaffirm his old resolve:

" A (declaration) of immunity from God and His Apostle, to those of the pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances. Go ye, then, for four months backwards and forwards (as ye will) throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate God (by your falsehood), but that God will cover with shame those who reject Him. And an announcement from God and His Apostle, to the people (assembled) on the day of the great pilgrimage – that God and His Apostle dissolve (treaty) obligations to the pagans. If, then ye repent, it were best for you. But if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate God. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject faith. (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfill your engagements with them to the end of their term, for God loveth the righteous. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war). But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them." -Sura 9:1-6

Which demonstrates an offensive war to subdue the pagans. Note that there was nothing defensive about it any more.

This was also extended to the People of the Book:

" Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the people of the Book [Bible], until they pay the jizya with willing submission, feel themselves subdued. Jews call Uzair [Ezra] a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the Son of God ... God’s curse be on them; how they are deluded away from truth! They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of God, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary. Yet they are commanded to worship but One God. -Sura 9:29-31

Note how Mohammed claims the right to wage offensive warfare on the People of the Book, because he didn't get to define the tenents of their religion. They had to be subjugated under islam, and be forced to pay the tribute tax, and "feel themselves subdued".

I had more, such as the 624 AD war on the banu Quaynuqa tribe of jews, the 627 massacre of the banu Qurayza jews, and the 628 attack on the jews of Khaybar, which established the practice of dhimmitude, all during the Medina period, but those are out of the hadith, so I won't quote them directly, in keeping within your constraints.

All in all, I think I've presented enough from the Qur'an itself to establish that yes, the subjugation of the People of the Book under islamic rule is called for in the Qur'an itself, per my original assertion, and it should be sufficient to answer your question presented here:

OK let's start from subjugation of the people of the book under Islamic rule.

Let's start with a question:
Is this rule in the Quran?

After this we go to other issues.

What's the next issue you want to go on to?

Edit: to fix fouled /ex tag.


[edit on 2010/7/8 by nenothtu]

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by LittleSecret

 

"Fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression" refers, of course, to the oppressive Meccans, who disallowed the muslims access to the Ka'aba. The part about "and there prevail justice and faith in God altogether and everywhere" shows a much wider, more ambitious agenda, in demanding "justice and faith in God ALTOGETHER and EVERYWHERE." Note that this portion is no longer constrained to just the Meccans.

9:1-6 talks about treaties. IF you read 9:4, you will see this:

9:4 (Asad) But excepted shall be [4] -from among those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God - [people] with whom you [O believers] have made a covenant and who thereafter have in no wise failed to fulfil their obligations towards you, and neither have aided anyone against you: observe, then, your covenant with them until the end of the term agreed with them. [5] Verily, God loves those who are conscious of Him.

So if you look in context it should be self explanatory.

Thoroughly subdued the land. Sounds a lot like aspirations of conquest to me...

Sorry but if I missed the subjugation please inform me.

Which demonstrates an offensive war to subdue the pagans. Note that there was nothing defensive about it any more.

If you read that chapter from the beginning you would have probably held a better grasp of what 9:29-31 means.

9:3 (Asad) And a proclamation from God and His Apostle [is herewith made] unto all mankind on this day of the Greatest Pilgrimage: [3] "God disavows all who ascribe divinity to aught beside Him, and [so does] His Apostle. Hence, if you repent, it shall be for your own good; and if you turn away, then know that you can never elude God!" And unto those who are bent on denying the truth give thou [O Prophet] the tiding of grievous chastisement.

9:4 (Asad) But excepted shall be [4] -from among those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God - [people] with whom you [O believers] have made a covenant and who thereafter have in no wise failed to fulfil their obligations towards you, and neither have aided anyone against you: observe, then, your covenant with them until the end of the term agreed with them. [5] Verily, God loves those who are conscious of Him.

So to give you an explanation of what it means in context:
It is talking about treaties between Muslim nations and others, if they break the treaty then 9:29-31 applies.

If they haven't broken any treaties, or are not aiding anyone against Muslims.

And the Jizya is not subjugation, the Jizya is tax, and Jizya is a small %. Muslims pay higher tax than Jizya, and Muslims are obliged to give charity tax under Islam.

unfortunately non of the verses showed any subjugation.

What should we discuss next.




[edit on 8-7-2010 by LittleSecret]

Originally posted by Eagleheart56
Evidentially this person has never even open the Koran, so sad when you allow someone else to make up your mind, all a person has to do is read even part of the Koran to realize that Islam is the religion of conquest, lies, deception. Wake up before its too late and you are either in someone Harem or wearing an iron collar and working in the fields.

who, exactly is "this person" that you refer to?

is it me, the author of the thread?
or someone else on a recent page?

if you use the "reply to" option, you can be certain that your reference is clear and you'll get more replies than just popping in and saying "this person."

i don't want to leave you out so i'm asking who you mean, and if it is me, i would like to address the points you've made.

but i'll wait until you clarify, and thank you for participating!

reply to post by LittleSecret


Oh yeah they always like to come up with the jizya - Oh noez, look, non-muslims must pay jizya as a humiliation for them.

Really now?

Non-muslims, in an islamic state must pay taxes, just as muslims must.
The difference is: while muslims also must serve in military and defend the non-muslims too, these (the non-muslims) have no obligation to serve in the military.

And thejizya tax is much lower than the taxes muslims have to pay, which are zakat and sadaka.

So, basically we have this:

Islamic State:

Muslims:

1. Have to serve in the military and risk their life.
2. Have to still pay taxes, zakat and sadaka, which are higher than jizya.

Non-Muslims:

1. Are free from obligation in serving in the military. No risking their life.
2. They pay jizya tax instead which is lower than what muslims pay.

Where is here the "discrimination" and "humiliation" of the non-muslims?

Obvious haters are obvious.

[edit on 7/8/2010 by skajkingdom]

reply to post by zappafan1


but what is the purpose of only listing one side of the history?

what about the slaughter wrought in the name of the Holy Roman Church to "reclaim" Jerusalem, that never belonged to it, in the first place? the blood ran in the streets up to the horse's bridles, according to legend. that is most likely hyperbole but exaggeration is a method for conveying something significant and i daresay that from the Muslim side of things, it was catastrophically significant.

all that blood was shed in the name of Christ and so it was justified in the minds of the Crusaders. but how does that make it right to come into another land and proceed to take it with violence in the name of religion?

the entire history of the conflict between Islam and the western world is rooted in the ill-begotten Crusades, yet today all we hear about, in the west, is how evil Islam is for doing the very same thing for which we, the west, set the prime global example of all time.

and what's worse...we continue to do so! we hide behind various justifications but it is still the same poisonous selfishness and blatant disregard for human rights and the precious thing called "life."

and even "human rights" is an oft-used excuse for inhumanely denying same to those who stand in the way of our vehement efforts to take all we can, from whomever we can, perhaps just because we can.

i am an American and i am ashamed of my country and many of my countrymen for their blatant hypocrisy and commitment to ignorance and violence. i am continually appalled at the venomous hate being directed to all Muslims for the deeds of a very small fraction of the entire number living on the Earth.

America isn't supposed to be about that, at all! How can the great melting pot be so narrow-minded and prejudicial?

:shk:

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Can any body say Hypocrisy? Oh wait that word has a Greek origin never mind.

i think i just said "hypocrisy." but i will see if i can use it again, in a sentence, at the earliest legitimate opportunity.

but seriously, none of us can ever undo the past and what has already been done.

and it is true that no one is innocent but no one is completely responsible for the ENTIRE situation. but that is true of human history, all over the world.

the world has not been free of war driven violence for 7,000 years!
that is the past and we cannot change it.

we can change tomorrow, by acting DIFFERENTLY today than we did, yesterday.

no one on the side of hate in this thread seems willing to live in the present and look toward the future. it's all about harsh unforgiving resentment which is deadly in its own right.

and if we can't somehow get it together in the NOW so that we have a NOW to look forward to, ahead of us, none of this will matter, anyway, because we will ALL BE DEAD and in that case, good riddance to bad rubbish. earth is much lovelier without the blight of humanity's love for war, even if it means it will also be without all that is beauty in humanity.

what good is beauty if it is dead?

Originally posted by randyvs
I just wanted to say that barefoot pregnant women are also advocate's of peace.
But they still terrify me.

My wife just hit me. I'm calling the cops.

:lol

is she going to need a bail-out?

tell her she can call me!