Why the west should fear muslims

Originally posted by atlguy

Originally posted by Acharya

Why do you say I have not read the Quran?

Some quotes from the Quran that advocates seperation, violence, and war:

You really don't want to start on this track. I can tit-for-tat you with Bible verses that eclipse those from the Qur'an.

Wouldn't that be proving that all religion is bad?

2nd line.

Originally posted by Mobius1974
Lets all agree on something...

Religion has killed more people than every disease on earth!
Religion is the main reason for intolerance on earth!!
Religion is a tool to keep "man" in line and give him something more to fear than death!
Religion is also a tool to help mentally weak people deal with death and dying!
The bible is a book for reference on moral issues-- Not a very good one! But none the less, is what it is supposed to be used for!

There is no "old man" in the clouds that grants wishes randomly!!!

During each time period, the word "fanatic" could be assigned to every religion at certain times in history!

These days it seems to be the muslims that stick out as the fanatics.... The Catholics had their day!

One day, todays religion, will be looked at like the religions of early indians!
Dilusional and OBVIOUSLY not right... I mean come on .. A sun god? a moon god? .... One day religion will be seen for what it is.. A weak mans crutch to deal with life and lifes problems.

Are Muslims crazy and dilusional - Yes
Are Christians crazy and dilusional - yes
Catholics-- you know the answer!

Now IMHO the only religion that has it right is Scientology!!!

Jking.... But Scientology proves that this planet is filled with weak minded individuals that are willing to believe anything layed out in front of them...

The people of this planet are spiritualy lonely and desperate to fit in.. Its rather sad..

Now on to the Jews---- wow.. I do side with ISRAEL (not jews) on most issues over there.

But to live your life thinking that some fake guy in the clouds made you his "chosen people" really? I mean really?

The insanity of religion never ends.. The only way there will ever be peace on this planet, is if all religions are made illegal!!! yeah i said it..

If they are made illegal, only criminals will have religion.

reply to post by ollncasino

Originally posted by ollncasino
You are letting your ignorance show again.

Jihad is the only type of warfare permitted to Muslims according to Islamic law based on the interpretation of the Koran and ahadith by Muslim religious jurists.

Consequently, any verse defining the rights of Muslims to wage war must by implication be jihad.

I am not showing any ignorance at all. EVEN if one accepts what you say, several of the verses in that list you posted ARE NOT EVEN ABOUT WAR. And the ones that are, well, I posted an example, and I am pretty sure any sane reader will be able to distinguish between the "evil violence" you are suggesting and the permission for defensive war that is in the text.

Originally posted by ollncasino
Perhaps his most notorious jiahd that Muhammed was directly involved in was the beheading of 800 male Jews of the Banu Qurayza...

It is hilarious how deep the detractors of Islam have to dig to find something to prop up their point. Then they pretend it is the norm! The source of the story you relate (not entirely accurately, even in spite of the fact that it wasn't accurate to begin with) was discounted as false BY NAME by a contemporary of Ibn Ishaq (the author, or collector of these stories).

Originally posted by ollncasino
All of the Muslim conquests, being the only type of warfare permitted by Islam, was by definition Jihad in the name of Allah.

This is the silliest thing I've ever heard. So then every battle by nations ruled by Christians can then be called Crusades in the name of God? So we're just coming out of the Afghanistan Crusade and the (2nd) Iraq Crusade, and will soon be starting the Iran Crusade. DEUS VULT!

Originally posted by ollncasino
If the Muslims had successfully taken Vienna, you would likely be speaking Arabic right now and bowing towards Mecca 5 times a day. I suspect you wouldn't mind much.

Why not go further back? If the muslims had won the Battle of Tours, today, we might have been at the pinnacle of civilisation, 1000 years advanced from what we are now, as we would have dodged that pesky era known as the "Dark Ages".

PS: 547000, I had to star you for that awesome line. I hope you don't mind if I use it if the situation arises

[edit on 1-9-2010 by babloyi]

Thanks man. I don't mind; feel free to use it however you please.

reply to post by babloyi



ya we would all be speaking muslim and there would be no "dark ages", you are right because we would need enlightenment to differentiate.

glad they got their a## kicked.

reply to post by fooks


There is no such language as "muslim".

I don't see any reason to fear a religious community, just because you have a hateful disposition towards this religous community doesn't mean you should make propaganda.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Which is exactly why this fear mongering is accomplishing nothing. Apart from increasing general racism against a whole people just because a tiny minority are extremists.

I agree with your aims. We need to preserve freedoms and liberties. I however differ from you in believing the best way to do that is to not tolerate the intolerant Religious-Political movement we call Islam.

You do make some very valid points. I'm not sure however that the 122,000 American Muslims who support Al Qaeda and 170,000 American Muslims who support suicide bombing is a tiny minority.

By comparison, the whole French army has 123,100 regulars and 18,350 part-time reservists.

Certainly the 15% of American Muslims under 30 who support suicide bombings is far from a tiny minority. It is a significant and potentially dangerous minority.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
If they fly by plane, they now have to endure "random" (lol) spot checks.

I am happy to be checked if it stops my family and I getting blown out of the sky. Surely moderate Muslims must feel the same?

In light of the following episode, surely spot checks are to be welcomed in the interests of saving lifes?

Two American Muslims have been taken off a Chicago-to-Amsterdam United Airlines flight in the Netherlands and have been charged by Dutch police with "preparation of a terrorist attack"

abcnews.go.com...

Originally posted by MrXYZ
That's like me protesting Christianity just because the young earth creationists or evangelists who say Harry Potter is the devil are insane.

How many people have the earth creationists or evangelists killed in relation to Harry Potter? How many death threats have they issued?

The death toll over the Danish Muhammad cartoons stands at, at least, 139 people killed and 832 injured. The cartoonists live under death threat.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Look, no one's arguing in favor of extremists. But if we condemn a whole people just because of the actions of few, we become what we really hate, oppressive! And freedom and liberties go right out of the window.

When Islam dominates a country, freedom and liberties also go out of the window.

The only democratic Islamic state in the world is Turkey. The Turkish army has had to stage coups 4 times since World War II to stop Islamic extremists taking power.

At the moment, turkey has a Prime Minister who has stated

'The Muslim world is waiting for Turkey to rise up. We will rise up! With Allah's permission, the rebellion will start.'

and

'The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers.'

www.dailymail.co.uk...

He has also stated, when talking to a crowd of 16,000 Turkish immigrants in Germany

"Assimilation is a crime against humanity"

www.jihadwatch.org...

If the best the Islamic world can offer is Turkey and its own PM has stated that integration is a crime, why are we importing these people into the West?




[edit on 2-9-2010 by ollncasino]

Perhaps his most notorious jihad that Muhammed was directly involved in was the beheading of 800 male Jews of the Banu Qurayza

Originally posted by babloyi
It is hilarious how deep the detractors of Islam have to dig to find something to prop up their point.

This would be funny if you weren't being serious. The Koran itself refers to the murder of the Jews (suwar 33:26 & 33:27).

You either didn't know that or you did and didn't want to damage your own argument and preferred to be disingenuous.

33:26 He also brought down their allies among the people of the scripture from their secure positions, and threw terror into their hearts. Some of them you killed, and some you took captive.

33:27 He made you inherit their land, their homes, their money, and lands you had never stepped on. God is in full control of all things.

Note the above source is The authorized translation of the Koran.

www.submission.org...

For a better explanation of what the Suras refer to, please see

www.quranexplained.co.uk...

33:26 Those People of the Scripture who allied with the clans (despite having a treaty with you), have been taken out from their forts and strongholds, and panic has struck their hearts. Some of them were killed in the battle and others were taken prisoners of war. (The Jewish tribe, Bani Quraizah had violated the treaty, although another Jewish tribe, Bani Nadir of Khyber had also been among the confederates).

A much more comprehensive explanation is that of Ibn Ishaq.

Ibn Ishaq was a devout Muslim historian and was the author of the first autobiography about Muhammad - Sirat Rasul Allah - "Life of God's Messenger" in 768 AD. He provided details about the episode mentioned in sura 33:26 & 33:27.

www.archive.org...

From page 84 & 85 of Ibn Ishaq's autobiography about Muhammad

"The apostle of Allah imprisoned the Qurayza in Medina while trenches were dug in the market-place. Then he sent for the men and had their heads struck off so that they fell in the trenches. They were brought out in groups, and among them was Kab, the chief of the tribe. In number, they amounted to six or seven hundred, although some state it to have been eight or nine hundred. All were executed. One man turned to his people and said, 'It matters not! By God's will, the children of Israel were destined for this massacre!’ Then he seated himself and his head was struck off...

...Now the apostle distributed the property of the Banu Qurayza, as well as their women and children, to the Muslims, reserving one-fifth for himself. Every horseman received three shares, one for himself and two for his steed, and every foot soldier one share. There were thirty-six horses present on the day of the Qurayza. The apostle dispatched an emissary to Najd with the prisoners, to barter them as slaves in exchange for horses and camels. The apostle of Allah selected one of the Jewish women, Rayhana, for himself, and she remained with him as his slave until she died. He had suggested marriage to her, that she should wear the veil (to separate her from all other persons, as his wives did), but she replied, 'Rather allow me to remain thy slave; it will be more easy for me, and for thee.'"

Originally posted by babloyi
The source of the story you relate (not entirely accurately, even in spite of the fact that it wasn't accurate to begin with) was discounted as false BY NAME by a contemporary of Ibn Ishaq (the author, or collector of these stories).

To quote another web page

It is not difficult to understand why the name of Ibn Ishaq has been held in low esteem by the Classical Traditionists of the Third Islamic Century. They were reluctant to, and in a total state of intellectual denial to accept Muhammad's potrayal by Ibn Ishaq, which is, to put it charitably, extremely unfavourable and unpleasant. The biography shows a man who is utterly without mercy or compassion. He incites his followers to commit mass murder and assassinations against individuals and tribes who either displeased him, opposed him or, because of jealousy; he wanted to acquire their wealth and women.

www.inthenameofallah.org...

Originally posted by babloyi
This is the silliest thing I've ever heard. So then every battle by nations ruled by Christians can then be called Crusades in the name of God?

Sharia law and the Koran makes it clear that the only permitted war by an Islamic state is a Jihad in the name of Allah. When the Koran is discussing rules about warfare, it is discussing the rules of jihad - warfare in the name of Allah.

Originally posted by babloyi
several of the verses in that list you posted ARE NOT EVEN ABOUT WAR

The small number of verses you are confused about refer to war on a tribal level to enforce "an eye for an eye". There was no police force in early 7th century Arabia. The vast majority of the verses are clearly, on the face of it, about war on a state level.

www.answering-islam.org...

Originally posted by babloyi
I am pretty sure any sane reader will be able to distinguish between the "evil violence" you are suggesting and the permission for defensive war that is in the text.

Readers can follow the link above and make sense of the passages in light of

61:9 He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse.

to paraphrase

Allah gave Muhammad the one true religion and sent him to conquer all other (false) religions

skepticsannotatedbible.com...

9:33 He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.

skepticsannotatedbible.com...

to paraphrase

Allah gave Muhammad the one true religion and sent him to conquer all other (false) religions.

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

skepticsannotatedbible.com...

reply to post by ollncasino

Originally posted by ollncasino
This would be funny if you weren't being serious. The Koran itself refers to the murder of the Jews (suwar 33:26 & 33:27).

You either didn't know that or you did and didn't want to damage your own argument and preferred to be disingenuous.

I'm sorry, but how exactly do the verses you posted prove that your story from Ibn Ishaq is accurate? If anything, they prove that it is false. It is pretty funny how you are accusing ME of being ignorant or dishonest .

Originally posted by ollncasino
Ibn Ishaq was a devout Muslim historian and was the author of the first autobiography about Muhammad - Sirat Rasul Allah - "Life of God's Messenger" in 768 AD.

He was a "devout Muslim historian"?
Did you know him well? He must have been pretty devout if he was able to channel Muhammad's spirit and write an autobiography of him. The placement of your text that I just quoted next to the archive.org link to Ibn Ishaq's biography would lead one to believe you posted a quote from the link (or from the book). However, nowhere in the book or in the link is that text present.
If instead I put "Ibn Ishaq was a ... first autobiography" into google, the results are far more telling. The first link is from answering-islam. Then we have stuff from muslim-responses, muhammadbiography, muslimhope, thereligionofpeace, terrycast, and even an "interview" between Pat Robertson and Ergun Caner on a Christian Ministry website. Many of the remaining are then posts on various forums or websites that seemed to have copy-pasted from those aforementioned anti-islam websites. One has to wonder, do these people do ANY research of their own?! Or is EVERYTHING they know about Islam picked up from anti-islam websites? Have they never "opened the cover of a Koran themself?"

However, if we go to CONTEMPORARIES of Ibn Ishaq, we'll hear accusations of him being a liar, an imposter, etc. Now I'm not necessarily agreeing with any of these accusations, since I never knew the man personally. However, if one looks at his work, one cannot but agree that while it might make for some interesting stories, it is textually weak and cannot be taken as fact- his little tales very often had no chain of narrators, none of them could be verified, and were stitched together from the hearsay of several contradicting accounts. This inaccuracy would be further compounded by the fact that we have no text from Ibn Ishaq remaining! All we have is an english translation of an edit that Ibn Hashim did, of an edit by al-Bakkai (his student) of the original. And once again, Al-Bakka'i was viewed as a weak and unreliable narrator.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by babloyi
This is the silliest thing I've ever heard. So then every battle by nations ruled by Christians can then be called Crusades in the name of God?

Sharia law and the Koran makes it clear that the only permitted war by an Islamic state is a Jihad in the name of Allah. When the Koran is discussing rules about warfare, it is discussing the rules of jihad - warfare in the name of Allah.

I am curious how what you said is a response to my question. Once again, I ask "So then every battle by nations ruled by Christians can then be called Crusades in the name of God?" or "Is every fight involving someone who refers to themselves as muslim a Jihad?"

Originally posted by ollncasino
The small number of verses you are confused about refer to war on a tribal level to enforce "an eye for an eye". There was no police force in early 7th century Arabia. The vast majority of the verses are clearly, on the face of it, about war on a state level.

I am not the one who is confused here. "War on a tribal level"?! Hahahha...where on earth did you get that idea from? You appear to be stretching the meaning of "Jihad" to new and absurd heights. And they are hardly a "small number", either, although I wonder how you can make the claim that they are a small number.... have you checked each and every one of them? I seriously doubt it. I have barely reached Surah 5 in that list, and already I count 4 that are not talking about any war/military action at all. Checking the last one on the list (76:8), also shows it to be not talking about any war/military action at all.

Perhaps I should inform you in case you haven't figured it out yet: Your source is REALLY unreliable. GET A BETTER ONE

. Or even better, "open the cover of the koran yourself".


Okay, now we go from one bad source to another one. You started listing "interpretations" or (as you called them this time) "paraphrases" of various verses. It is interesting you post 61:9 and 9:33, both of which have the exact same text in arabic, but with different translations. Let me give you a hint here: the 2nd translation is more accurate (well, they both are, but I suppose you are predisposed to take the military meaning of "conqueror"). The word you are mixing up here would be "li-uzhirahoo" (لِيُظۡهِرَهُ). Translate it any way you wish, you'll get "to manifest it", "to proclaim it", or perhaps "to make it prevail". Sorry, but it has no military connotations- your (skeptic's annotated's) paraphrase is wrong.

May i just say this...If Islam was truelly a religion about spreading hate, war, and death.... I think the estimated 1.5 billion Muslims in the world would be on the news A LOT more often then it is now.
Seriously....its simple logic...

This whole fear mongering is nothing but the dumb, paranoid, angry cry from the Christian right who look at this as a giant battle of good vs evil...mostly because the bible says such a battle will happen and they believe it reinforces their belief.

We need to STOP listening those fundi village idiots who believe in talking snakes but mistrust science and facts. In order for America's people to move boldly into the future, we need to drop the village idiots in the desert. Those wanna-be Christians (who aren't really Christians, they're like Scientology sect members) would probably still support the inquisition if they could, and the crusades...and this is not something any modern person should support.

[edit on 4-9-2010 by MrXYZ]

Originally posted by MrXYZ
In order for America's people to move boldly into the future, we need to drop the village idiots in the desert.
[edit on 4-9-2010 by MrXYZ]

What if the village idiots you refer to are the only thing standing between the American people and the dessication of of your country?

Make no mistake, Islam is one of the main players seeking global domination.

And no amount of liberal acceptance will stop Islam enslaving the people with a far more constrictive yoke than the current capitalist slave system.

Originally posted by teapot

Originally posted by MrXYZ
In order for America's people to move boldly into the future, we need to drop the village idiots in the desert.
[edit on 4-9-2010 by MrXYZ]

What if the village idiots you refer to are the only thing standing between the American people and the dessication of of your country?

Make no mistake, Islam is one of the main players seeking global domination.

And no amount of liberal acceptance will stop Islam enslaving the people with a far more constrictive yoke than the current capitalist slave system.

No one will be able to enslave you in the US because we have laws against that. You know...liberty & freedom, the core values of this country, the very thing you're trying to take away from some US citizens that don't believe in the same thing you do.

reply to post by MrXYZ


I am not American and America is not the world.

I would take nothing away from Americans or America but if America falls to Islam and continues to act as global policeman, then I too shall feel the stinging yoke of Islam, as will we all.

Originally posted by teapot
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I am not American and America is not the world.

I would take nothing away from Americans or America but if America falls to Islam and continues to act as global policeman, then I too shall feel the stinging yoke of Islam, as will we all.

How exactly would they "fall for Islam"? Islam isn't part of its laws, and never will be. No one's being forced to become a Muslim. The whole notion is nothing but paranoia. Let me guess, you're Christian, right?

reply to post by MrXYZ


Islamic strategies for an Islamic world state include using due democratic process to get elected into western halls of power.

Do you imagine that once moslems have achieved majority they will protect your western freedoms?

My personal beliefs are immaterial to the subject at hand.

[edit on 4/9/2010 by teapot]

reply to post by teapot


So basically you're saying all Muslims are conspiring to take over the world...all of them. That's beyond ridiculous and just shows how little you know about them...

Considering how you just generalized an entire race of people, I have no qualms against making a generalization of YOUR society. Norway is a country with deep-set cultural racism and was one of the few European countries that met nazism with open arms. Your justice system is far too lenient (this coming from someone who hates cops, but thinks there was NO REASON FOR VARG VIKERNESS TO BE ALLOWED LEAVE FROM PRISON) and instead of using your horrendous income tax on useful things, such as a COMPETENT POLICE FORCE, you blame minorities with a different outlook on life. I have no doubt that much of what you said about the muslims is true, but for every madman that mutilates his daughter's vagina there is a perfectly sane muslim who is tired of being disenfranchised by his adopted culture. What really set me off with this post was the IQ scale you used as a justification for your ignorance. I have seen this same justification for racism on Varg Vikerness's website (who I might add is a shining Paragon of your people). At the end of the day I think I would side with a Muslim over a Nazi.